The 44th Annual Meeting of the IWC
in Glasgow, UK
1992

IWC/44/SEST2

SUMMARY OF WHALE MEAT AS A COMPONENT OF THE
CHANGING JAPANESE DIET IN HOKKAIDO
The attached report contains important information on various aspects of the small-typewhaling in Japan. The Government of Japan, therefore, submits this report as one of its documents
to the IWC Working Group to consider various aspects of the small-type whaling.

1992

Summary of whale meat as a component of the changing
Japanese diet in Hokkaido
Michael Ashkenazi
Ben Gurion University
andJeanne Jacob
Ben Gurion University

BIODATA

type whaling operation maintains the traditional role as alocal food producer for the people in these communities.
This report summarizes new and detailed anthropologicalunderstanding of the Japanese food culture and the role ofwhale meat in the general dietary habits presented in a
research report by Ashkenazi and Jacob. Their report
reviews the findings of the extensive interviews in six cities
in Japan and concludes that Japanese people favor whale
meat for particular, stated reasons and that eating whale
meat is undeniably a part of Japanese culture, with special
significance at the regional and local level. Their report also
provides comments on the relationship currently existing
between the customary whale meat cuisine and local people’s
identity as members of small-type whaling communities.

Dr. Michael Ashkenazi
Currently Lecturer in Anthropology, Department
of Behavioral Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of
the Negev, Israel, Dr. Ashkenazi was educated at Tel
Aviv University, Waseda University, and Yale
University (M.Phil, Ph.D).
Dr. Ashkenazi is a specialist on East Asia, withparticular research interest in Japanese ritual and religion,
traditional and modern marketing and management
institutions, and food and consumption.
Publications relating to Japanese food culture include
The Choice of ‘Symbolic’ Objects in Japan (in Ethnology
1988), Japanization, Internationalization and Aesthetics
in the Japanese Meal (in Rethinking Japan 1991), andTachi soba and Naorai: Cultural implications of theJapanese meal (Social Science Information 1991), andMatsuri: The Festivals of a Japanese Town, (Universityof Hawaii Press, 1992).
Ms. Jeanne Jacob
Ms. Jacob is presently Scientific Editor at the Facultyof Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.
Educated at Ben Gurion University (Linguistics andJapanese Studies), and Tokyo University of Foreign
Studies, she has worked as a translator and scientific editor
in the U.S., Canada, Israel and Japan.
Ms. Jacob’s research interests include JapaneseManagement at Home and Abroad (Ben-Gurion University
Press, 1987), Problems in style and translation (inRethinking Japan 1991), Kuidoraku no tengoku, and otherarticles in Denden Tokyo, 1981-1982.

INTRODUCTION
Since pre-historic times the Japanese have utilized awide spectrum of seafood, from a large assortment of fish,
crustaceans, mollusc, seaweed, and marine mammals. The
study described here was intended to examine the uses of
one component of seafood utilization — whalemeat — in
the Japanese diet, and to see how changes in this componentof the diet are viewed by native Japanese.
Two main points were examined. First, we wereinterested in identifying changes in modern (1990-1991)
consumption of okazu (accompanying dish) and their sociocultural implications. Second, we were interested in seeing
how these changes were viewed by the respondents in termsof their own dietary preferences.

METHOD
The research was conducted over two sequential periodsof one month each by two researchers. To provide forcomparative data, six cities (Abashiri, Kushiro, Asahikawa,
Sapporo, Yuzawa and Tokyo) were sampled. Small,medium and large cities were compared with each category
including one community with historical ties to whaling

ABSTRACTThe distinctiveness of the Japanese whaling culturalcomplex is historically centered around the extensive useof whale products for human consumption in the coastal
whaling communities. In contemporary Japan the small-213

IWC/44/SEST2

and another with no such ties at each size category.
Three main research instruments were utilized:
interviews, a household consumption schedule, andobservation. Interviews, both semi- and non-structured wereconducted with 119 individuals.
Forty families were asked to fill a household foodconsumption schedule. This was intended to provide for amore rigid assessment of household consumption againsthousehold preferences as elicited in interviews.
Both methods above were supplemented by roughsurveys of marketing patterns in fish shops andsupermarkets in all six of the communities noted. Areas
that were surveyed for the serving of whalemeat inrestaurants and drinking establishments were selected on
the basis of a size that could be handled comfortably by asingle researcher. The same was essentially true for shops
and fishmongers: all those shops within a thirty-minutewalking radius were surveyed, and a fraction of owners/
operators then interviewed.

desirable foodstuff.
Whalemeat, which had been a common food item inJapan until recently, is of particular interest. The generalthrust of change in food consumption has been towards the
addition of foodstuffs to the Japanese diet. Until the latter
half of the twentieth century, Japanese with access to marine
and freshwater foodstuffs rarely ate animal products. The
post-war average Japanese diet has been characterized,
narrowly, by the addition of meat (pork and beef), milk
and milk products, and bread and other wheat products,
previously enjoyed by very few. Of the few cases ofdeletion, or limitation of foodstuffs, the case of whalemeat
is a single massive occurrence of the forced dropping of afoodstuff from the Japanese diet.

DISCUSSION
The data presented focuses on only one issue among
many in Japanese cuisine. Understanding the consequenceand processes of forced change such as the consumption ofwhalemeat illuminates other aspects of a cuisine. Some of
the findings can be discussed here.
First, whalemeat has been a constituent of Japanesecuisine, and continues to be so. This is emphatically andparticularly true in areas where whalemeat has been
traditionally eaten, though not solely there. Whalemeat was,and is eaten in all the locales studied, but its relative
importance varies greatly both from locale to locale, andfor individuals and families within a given locale. The
percentage of those who enjoy whalemeat is obviously
higher in those area directly related to whaling (e.g.
Abashiri), but is also high elsewhere.
One reason that whalemeat was a common foodstuff inJapan is its versatility. In the form of sarashi kujira(parboiled tailmeat), it can be used to give flavoring to soups
and stews. Its red meat can be cooked in all the ways used
for pork, beef, or chicken. It can be fried (kujira karaage
and kujira cutlet), boiled (kujira tsukudani), stewed (kujira
shabu-shabu), sauted (sweet and sour whale), and grilled(Korean barbecue-style whale). In addition, it is alsoamenable to all the ways of preparing fish, as sashimi andeven sushi.
It was not only as fresh meat that whale was utilized as
foodstuff. Processed, its meats found its way into fishsausages or ham. Canned as unflavored mizutaki, it was aconvenient staple to have on hand, and one seasoned it tosuit one’s needs. As well, it was canned already flavored:
as yamato-ni stew, or spiced with ginger, or as corned ‘beef’.
The ventral groove (unesu) was also made into bacon.
The blubber was boiled down into oil, and until the
mid-50s, the oil used for cooking tempura. Blubber was
also made into margarine. The crisp bits of blubber thatremained after oil was extracted are called koro, once
commonly eaten as an afternoon snack by Japanese now intheir early fifties. Koro is still an ingredient of Osaka-styleoden (a fish and vegitable hodge-podge). Even the tongue,
called saezuri, was utilized, and is a Kaga-area speciality.

BACKGROUND
Whalemeat has been eaten in the Japanese islands sinceprehistoric times. During the Edo period (1600-1848),
technological improvements increased the number ofwhales caught by coastal communities using nets. The
arrival of European whaling fleets in the north Pacificbrought about a general decline in the whale population
and apparently a consequent reduction in the catch. The
catch rose again with the introduction of Western whaling
methods. During, and particularly after World War II, with
the Japanese economy in a shambles and food supply amajor problem, whaling fleets were enlarged to provide
protein for the population. This included both pelagic andcoastal whaling of large species and coastal whaling of small
species (STCW). As a consequence, whalemeat became
broadly available to the Japanese public. During the 1950s
whalemeat was served as a matter of course in institutional
meals: hospitals, dormitories, prisons, and mostsignificantly, schools. A decline in the numbers of whales
available for exploitation led to world-wide limitations onmost whaling. This essentially came about in two phases.
Roughly, in the period between 1977 and 1986, with anincreased limitation on large-scale whaling imposedinternationally, meat from STCW became more prominent.
And, since a complete moratorium on commercial whaling
in 1986 (taking effect in 1988), the meat of small species
caught off the coast of Japan has been severely limited.
By many Japanese whalemeat was characterized as aneveryday kind of foodstuff; an identity that hasconsequences for whalemeat’s place in Japanese cuisine.
By the time the supply of whalemeat had decreased withthe cessation of large-scale whaling, whalemeat had become
appreciated by the Japanese not solely because it was an
economical source of food, but for itself: its taste, itsversatility, and its ease of preparation (it was sold asboneless, skinless fillet). It had metamorphosed into a214

Summary of Whale Meat as a Component of the Changing Japanese Diet in Hokkaido
By many Japanese whalemeat was characterized as aneveryday kind of foodstuff; an identity that hasconsequences for whalemeat’s place in Japanese cuisine.
In addition to actual consumption patterns, people’s
preferences are important as well, since expressed
preferences yield information about the directions changes
can and are likely to take. Here too, there is a great variety.
The variation in preference is a function of two factors.
The history of availability of this particular food isimportant, and related to that, the availability of otherfoodstuffs. In other words, the entire food history ofmodern Japan must be considered in order to understandthis particular aspect. Insofar as the first factor goes,individuals who ate and enjoy whalemeat during its periodof plenty, and during the period when few other animal
proteins were available tend to look on whalemeat
nostalgically. Individuals who ate whalemeat only as ahigh-cost, essentially luxury item, tend to classify it assuch, and tend to view other animal protein as fair
substitute.
The almost exclusive preference for fish had begun to
shift to a preference for meat. That is, younger Japanesestill eat a great variety of fish with great enjoyment, butthey tend to prefer meat in increasing numbers. Even theirpreference for fish has shifted, as noted, to those fish which
are easy to eat, meaty, and boneless. Paradoxically enough,this has probably not reduced the preference for whalemeat.
Viewed traditionally as fish, whalemeat was an
exceptionally fine fish. Viewed simultaneously as amammal, whalemeat is desirable as a meat. As one
restaurateur said, whalemeat was eminently versatile: it
could be successfully prepared in all ways intended for fish
as well as for meat. In either case, whalemeat is recognized
as a specially Japanese item, one which almost none but
the Japanese prefer to such a degree.
The dual image of whalemeat as cheap and expensive
goes well beyond the relatively minor point that somepeople did and other did not care for it as children. The
semantic difference between different perceptions ofwhalemeat is of much greater importance. As we have seen
above, whalemeat is both fish and meat. As meat, it retains
its cheapness as a foodstuff. The price of whalemeat
certainly compares favourably with comparable meat fromother sources. That is, of stewing meats, whalemeat is oneof the cheapest. As an otsumami (drinking snack) , itcompares favourably with other meaty drinking snacks, andthe same is probably true of the price of (whale) steak. Of
no less importance is the fact that it retains an image ofcheapness, to the point that expensive eating establishments— always good weathercocks in a culture that regards its
cuisine as an important aspect of its uniqueness — will notconsider serving it.
The same is not true when we examine whalemeat asfish. At that point whalemeat in all our research sites
becomes a high-priced, often unavailable, limited food. It
is served as sashimi and must be compared with the finest

sashimi commonly available. This difference of course isreflected in the price difference, but, far more importantly,
it is reflected in the image consumers have of the food.
“Whale is expensive and out of reach” means that whalesashimi, whale as a desired choice of food, is out of theaverage individual’s reach, or nearly so.
Modern Japanese consumers are increasingly
knowledgeable of the dietary value of the foods they eat.
A common food value guide (Kagawa 1991) gives
nutritive values for whale roughly comparable to the best
fish and not far behind beef. For many, this sort of
information effectively supports their belief that “... whaleis good for you”.
Several implications arise from the data and are well
worth examining. First, there is no question that on thewhole, Japanese enjoy eating whalemeat. This would not,in itself, be an analytical factor but for the fact that thesentence encompasses a set of implications and relationshipsthat are material for the entire range of Japanese cuisine.
Whether or not whalemeat is the perfect food, as some of
our informants see it, is not important. The underlying
reasons for such a view are, that within the rules ofpreference of Japanese cuisine, raw minke does come close
to being the perfect okazu (accompanying dish). It has thosequalities that Japanese consumers associate with tasty food.
Now, this is of course more prominent in areas such as
Abashiri, where raw minke, in whatever qualities, wasreadily available.
We have tried to trace some of the compound, and often
conflicting mutual influence of economic factors,
perception, and differences in the population on the
consumption of whalemeat. The absence of whalemeat fromthe average Japanese dinner table is not likely to change
the desirability in a single element of Japanese culture. As
we have seen, different populations — youth and older
people, Abashiri locals and those from other areas — havedifferent perceptions of what whalemeat is as a food. The
demand for whalemeat in Abashiri is obviously greater thanelsewhere, for nostalgic, historical and personal reasons.
But the demand for whalemeat is based on far more thanjust local happenstance. Because of certain specific andidentifiable qualities that are inherent in Japanese foodculture, whalemeat is desirable to Japanese as a whole. That
it is more desirable, perhaps in Abashiri, is an accident ofhistory and geography.

LOCAL PREFERENCES IN ABASHIRI— THE EMERGENCE OF A CUISINE
Abashiri, a small town on the northeastern coast of
Hokkaido, represents one extreme in the preference forwhalemeat. It is exceptional among the study sites in that it
has been, for a fairly lengthy period of time, a whaling town.
Besides large-scale commercial whaling and flensing, whichhave long since disappeared from the town, two STCW
catcher boats have operated out of Abashiri before themoratorium and are still berthed there.

215

IWC/44/SEST2

It should be noted that the utilization of whalemeat in
Abashiri is considered, by its natives, to be relatively nonvaried. That is, for the average local consumer, whalemeat
represents, in retrospect given the current limitations onavailability, two dishes only: kujira sashimi and kujirajiru.
Whale sashimi, like all sashimi, consists of thinly sliced
raw flesh. It would normally be served on a bed of shredded
giant radish and eaten with soy sauce and horseradish dip(though some Abashiri respondents preferred grated ginger
in their soy sauce). By and large this is considered a daily
dish, that is, it is not used to mark or signify any special
occasion on the social or ritual calendar. The same is nottrue of kujirajiru (blubber soup). This is manifestly a festive
dish, normally served as an integral part of New Yearfestivities. The various dietary and cultural implications of
New Year dishes, kujirajiru included, go beyond the intent
of the fieldwork. However, two points must be raised. First,
a preference for blubber soup significantly marks off
Abashiri residents from those of other study sites. Second,the consumption of kujirajiru for many Abashiri
respondents included images of homely warmth and family
togetherness: the abashiri equivalent of the Christmas gooseor Thanksgiving turkey, or, in the Tokyo context, toshikoshi
soba (New Year noodles).
Limitations on the availability of whalemeat since themoratorium have obviously affected this preference. Freshwhalemeat is no longer available, and many respondents
nostalgically recalled the sound of the boat sirens(announcing a catch) and their salivary and gastronomic
responses.
The preference for whalemeat, as we noted above, is amatter of choice that derives from qualities associated withthe meat. This is much more strongly focused when we
examine the specific case of Abashiri. Factors such as
texture, colour, and taste come into focus when we examine
the particular preferences of Abashiri residents.
For most research site consumers, the type of whalemeat
available was of no significance. Consumers were rarely
aware of the type of whale consumed in five of the six cities
surveyed. This was emphatically not the case in Abashiri.
For Abashiri residents, ‘whale’ meant minke, and no otherspecies.
Most Abashiri respondents directly involved in whalingstated that while minke was available, they usually ate
whalemeat at least once a week. Abashiri informants fromnon-whaling-involved households stated that they ate
whalemeat at least once in ten days. Recipients ofwhalemeat as gifts would eat the whalemeat as sashimi assoon as received. If there was not enough to make a dish,then it was frozen and kept until more was received to makeinto one dish.
Beside the historical connection with whaling, otherfactors emerge from the Abashiri case. The colour ofwhalemeat — light for minke and other baleen whales vs.
dark for toothed whales — was a major factor for Abashiri
respondents. They definitely expressed a preference for lightwhalemeat, specifically that of minke. This preference forminke was true for all Abashiri respondents. One Abashiri
wholesaler, who only sells his stock within the city, saidemphatically when asked if he sold other whalemeat thanminke, “minku igai no kujira, kangaeta koto nai” (Iwouldn’t consider any whale but minke).
In effect, Abashiri represents an interesting case of a
nascent culinary tradition that has been interrupted. As
can be seen from the data, a definable population has
evolved, over a fairly short period of time, a set ofculturally defined preferences for a particular foodstuff
and for a particular food. A set of presentational rules
accompanies the food. Moreover, the food is woven into
an important cultural behaviour — gift giving — which ispart of the larger culture of which Abashiri is part. In effect,by using whalemeat, Abashiri residents wereaccomplishing two things: taking part in shared cultural
behaviour with all Japanese, while at the same timeemphasizing their own cultural uniqueness. It is, we might
add, immaterial whether they were doing so consciously.
Cultural factors emerge as the result of the cumulative daily
practices of individuals within a given environment. It ismaterial that Abashiri residents were aware that thisparticular aspect of their cuisine (and therefore, theirculture) set them apart slightly from other Japanese.
While it is clear that a complete cuisine had not emergedin Abashiri at the time of the moratorium, the interrupted
development of Abashiri’s sub-cuisine allows us to examinesome of the factors in its development. It is clear, forexample, that Abashiri residents chose particular foodstuffs
for food. As we have seen, certain types of whale and certain
parts of desired whale did not enter the cuisine, even though
Abashiri residents knew well that they were perfectly edible.
Moreover, by indicating an almost absolute preference forcertain preparation methods, they were, in effect,
cumulatively creating a culinary preference. The continued
absence of preferred whalemeat from their diet might wellmean that this initial preference will never be elaborated as
fully as it might have been.

CONCLUSIONS
Studying cultural change is inevitably problematic. The
dynamics of human societies are not as well understood asthey might be. Forced change, particularly sudden forcedchange is invaluable in helping us to understand theseprocess. Such a change came over Japanese society withthe moratorium on whaling.
First, while this study did not address the economic,
social and political effects of the whaling moratorium
on Japan’s coastal whalers, it is clear that they were
the ones most greatly affected. However, for the whalers
who live in a complex modern society, the change intheir livelihood also reflected a change in non-whaler’s
habits. A ripple effect is created, of which we studied
only one aspect.
The town of Abashiri, which had consumed a particular216

Summary of Whale Meat as a Component of the Changing Japanese Diet in Hokkaido
product, ceased consuming that product. With the absenceof whalemeat, a part of Abashiri’s local history and local
culture effectively faded. For some people this did not
matter, but for a segment of Abashiri’s population, thisreduced some of Abashiri’s intangible uniqueness. Most
small towns in Japan struggle to retain their populations.
The ability to do so is directly related to two aspects:
economics, that is, the existence of local industries andworkplace, and the image the town presents as a place
different from others, uniquely itself.
In the larger context — i.e., Kushiro and Asahikawa
and other contiguous cities — the total effects of the absenceof a particular item of diet — whalemeat — are less felt asa whole. Here too, however, the dining preferences ofindividuals and families are affected, to lesser or greater
degree. The ripples created by a change in the culturalcomplex diminish as the distance from centers of whalemeat
consumption grows.
A preference for a particular product is predicatedon a number of factors. The preference for whalemeat
derives from the qualities of the foodstuff itself. In anumber of definable ways, whalemeat can objectively
be shown to meet major criteria for a preferred food inJapanese cuisine. It is not ingrained habit which makes
whalemeat palatable for the Japanese, it is whalemeat’spalatability that makes it a habit. Food preferences are
obviously a matter of habituation and choice. But likeany cultural item, once entered into the cultural
inventory, it becomes a part of the culture. Eating
whalemeat is undeniably a part of Japanese culture, justas eating pork is a part of European culture. And thetwo preferences are related in another way as well: noteating pork defines a segment of mankind (including
Europeans) just as not eating whales defines anothersegment. Thus eating whalemeat for some Japanesecontraposes ‘Japanese’ with ‘non-Japanese’ in a deeply
felt, emotional way. Cetaphagy may or may not be moral
for any of a number of reasons, but for many Japanese
informants it is moral because it is something done bythem as a minor albeit intrinsic part of their culture.
In addition to the economic factors, the cultural factor
is also significant. Food culture, as a whole, plays a largepart in daily Japanese life. Most people are aware of, andtry to adopt to seasonal food specialities (e.g., bonito inlate summer, wild vegetables in spring). This food culture
pervades society at all economic levels. Besides cookbooks
and journals read by professional and amateur gourmets,
there is a host of other information available about goodcooking and good food.
For many Japanese, this applies to the consumptionof whalemeat as well. Food, as Goody (1982) and Murcott(1982) have noted separately, is not merely food: it is astatement of identity as well. The foodstuff, preparation,
rules of presentation, and events concerned, all conspire
to help individuals identity themselves as members of agroup. The preference for fresh, raw whalemeat helps

identify Abashiri residents to themselves, part of a large
and encompassing set of customs peculiar to that particularsmall town. In the absence of such practices that are
specific to them, Abashiri is less of a cohesive cultural
entity than it would be otherwise. Losing access to fresh
whalemeat (even in limited quantities) means that many
residents are losing access to an important part of theiridentifiable natal culture: a part that is also particularly
intimate and has strong emotional aspects. Lack of accessto fresh whalemeat will obviously not destroy Abashiri,
nor will it ruin local culture. It will, however, make it
different in significant ways from what it was.
Finally, to return to the issue of cultural change. This
comes in may guises, and must be viewed at many levels.
For the level that concerned us here, the level, in so far as
we were able to deal with it, of individuals, change isdeleterious in one area of their lives. That the change wasforced, for what seems to them mistaken reasons, simply
makes the change more painful.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (from original research paper)
Abashiri-shi. Suisanbu. 1987. Suisantoukei Sanjuunenshi
Abashiri-shi. Suisanbu. 1987, 1988, 1989. Suisantoukei
Akimichi, Tomoya et al. 1988. Small-Type Coastal Whalingin Japan: Report of an international workshop.
Edmonton: Boreal Institute for Northern
Studies
Appadurai, A. 1981. Gastropolitics in Hindu South Asia.
American Ethnologist 8: 494-511
Ashkenazi, Michael. 1989. Japanization,
Internationalization and Aesthetics in theJapanese Meal. pp. 338-349 in A. Boscaro etal. (eds) Rethinking Japan. London: Paul
Norbury
Barer-Stein, T. 1979. You Are What You Eat. Toronto:
McClelland & Stewart
Batstone, Eric. 1983. The Hierarchy of Maintenance andthe Maintenance of Hierarchy: Notes on Foodand Industry. pp. 45-53 in A. Murcott (ed) The
Sociology of Food and Eating. Aldershot:
Gower
Calvo, Manuel. 1982. Migration et Alimentation. Social
Science Information 21(3): 383-446
De Garine, I. 1970. The Social and Cultural Backgroundof Food Habits in Developing Countries(Traditional Societies) in G. Blix (ed)Symposium on Food Cultism and Nutritional
Quackery. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells/
Swedish Nutritional Foundation
De Garine, I. 1976. Food, Tradition and Prestige in D.N.
Walcher, N.Kretchmer, and H.L. Barnett (eds)
Food, Man, and Society. N.Y.: Plenum Press
Delamont, Sara. 1983. Lobster, Chicken, Cake and Tears:
Deciphering Wedding Meals. pp. 141-151 in
A. Murcott (ed) The Sociology of Food andEating. Aldershot: Gower

217

IWC/44/SEST2

Douglas, Mary. 1982. Food as a System of Communication.
pp. 82-124 in M. Douglas, In the Active Voice.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Douglas, Mary (ed). 1984. Food in the Social Order: Studies
of Food and Festivities in Three American
Communities. N.Y.: Russell Sage Foundation
Douglas, Mary and Jonathan Gross. 1981. Food and Culture:
Measuring the Intricacy of Rule Systems. Social
Science Information 20(1): 1-35
Eckstein E.F. 1980. Food People and Nutrition. Westport,
Conn: AVI Publications
Farb, Peter & George Armelagos. 1980. Consuming
Passions: The Anthropology of Eating. N.Y.:
Washington Square Press
Ferro-Luzzi, G.E. 1977. Remarks on D.P. McDonald’s Foodtaboos Anthropos 73: 593-94
Fieldhouse, Paul. 1986. Food & Nutrition: Customs andCulture. London: Croom Helm
Fischler, Claude. 1980. Food Habits, Social Change, andthe Nature/Culture Dilemma. Social Science
Information 19(6): 937-953
Fitzgerald, T. 1977. Nutrition and Anthropology in Action.
Amsterdam: Van Gorcum
Fitzgerald, Thomas. 1986. Dietary Change among Cook
Islanders in New Zealand. pp. 67-86 in L.
Manderson (ed) Shared Wealth and Symbol:
Food Culture and Society in Oceania.
Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press
Forster, R. and O., Ranum (eds). 1979. Food and Drink in
History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
Goody, Jack. 1982. Cooking, Cuisine and Class.
Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press
Guyer, P. 1988. Food Systems in Central and Southern
Africa. Man 23(2): 396-397
Harris, Marvin. 1987. Foodways: Historical Overview andTheoretical Prolegomenon. pp.57-90 in M.
Harris and E. Ross (eds). Food and Evolution:
Towards a Theory of Human Food Habits.
Philadelphia: Temple U. Press
Harris, Marvin. 1988. Good to Eat: Riddles of Food andCulture. New York: Simon and Schuster
Harris, Marvin and Eric Ross. 1987. Food and Evolution:
Toward a Theory of Human Food Habits.
Philadelphia: Temple U. Press
Hugichi, Seino. 1989. Nihon shokumotsu-shi [History ofJapanese foods] 4th ed. Tokyo: Shibata Shoten
Hokkaido Suisan-bu. 1990. Hokkaido suisangyou nosugata [Hokkaido fisheries today]. Sapporo:
Hokkaido Fisheries Department
Ishige, Naomichi. 1982. Shokuji no bunmei-ron [A theoryof the civilization of meals]. Tokyo: Chuo
Koron-sha
Ishige, Naomichi. 1986. Gyosho in N.E. Asia: A Study ofFermented Aquatic Products [in Japanese].
Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology,
Osaka 11(1): 1-14

Ishige, Naomichi. et al. 1990. Showa no shoku [Food in theShowa Era: Food Culture Symposium 189].
Tokyo: Domesu Shuppan
Iwasaki, Masami. 1988. Cultural Significance of Whaling
in a Whaling Community in Abashiri. M.A.
Thesis. Edmonton: University of Alberta
Jelliffe, D.B. 1967. Parallel Food Classification in
Developing and Industrialized Countries. Am.
J. of Clinical nutrition 20:276-281
Johnston, Francis E (ed). 1987. Nutritional Anthropology.
N.Y.: Alan R. Liss Inc
Kagawa, Jun, 1991. Shicho shokuhin seibunhyo [Standard
table of food composition in Japan]. Tokyo:
Joshi Eiyo Daigaku Shuppan-bu
Khare, R.S. 1980. Food as Nutrition and Culture: Notes
Towards an Anthropological Methodology.
Social Science Information 19(3): 519-542
Kimura, M. 1974. Geographical Distribution of Local
Traditional Cuisines in Japan. Geographicalreview of Japan 47(6): 394-401
Kishi, Asako. 1979. Geiryouri Konjaku. pp.85-88 in
Sakaguchi et al. (eds). Shoku no kagaku 48(Special Issue: Whalemeat)
Konno, E. 1962. Nihonjin shuzoku meishin: Nihonjin no
seikatsu zenshu. Tokyo: Iwasaki shoten
Krondl, M.M. and G.G. Boxen. 1975. Nutrition Behaviour,
Food Resources, and Energy in M. Arnott (ed).
Gastronomy: The Anthropology of Food andFood Habits. The Hague: Mouton
Kushiro Shiyakusho Keizaibu. Kushiro-shi Keizai Chousa
Shiryou. Suisan. Showa 35-47
Landerman, C. 1981. Symbolic and Empirical Reality: A
New Approach to the Analysis of Food
Avoidance. American Ethnologist 8(3): 468-93
Lehrer, A. 1969. Semantic Cuisine. Linguisitics 5: 1-192
Lindenbaum, Shirley. 1977. The Last Course: Nutrition and
Anthropology in Asia in T.K. Fitzgerald (ed).
Nutrition and Anthropology in Action.
Amsterdam.:Van Gorcum
Linhart, Sepp. 1986. Sakariba: Zone of ‘Evaporation’
Between Work and Home. pp. 198-210 in J.
Hendry and J. Webber (eds). Interpreting
Japanese society. Oxford: JASO
Manderson, Lenore. 1986. Food Classification andRestriction in Peninsular Malaysia: Nature
Culture, Hot and Cold? pp. 127-143 in L.
Manderson (ed) Shared Wealth and Symbol:
Food Culture and Society in Oceania.
Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press
Mennell, Stephen. 1985. All Manners of Food. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell
Messer, Ellen. 1984. Anthropological Perspectives on Diet.
Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 205-249
Murcott, Anne. 1982. On the Social significance of the‘Cooked Dinner’ in South Wales. Social
Science Information 21(4/5): 677-696

218

Summary of Whale Meat as a Component of the Changing Japanese Diet in Hokkaido
Murcott, Anne (ed). 1983. The Sociology of Food andEating. Aldershot: Gower
Nakatsuka, H.H., Kawahara and T. Watanabe. 1988. UrbanRural Differences in Food Habits inNortheastern Japan. Ecology of food andnutrition 21(l): 77-87
Norge, Jerome. 1975. On Determining Food Patterns ofUrban Dwellers in Contemporary U.S. Society.
pp. 91-111 in M. Arnott (ed). Gastonomy: The
Anthropology of Food Habits. The Hague:
MoutonNosaka, Yukichi. Taisho 4-8 [1916] Abashiri no
Hogeikiroku
Oosumi, Seiji. 1986. (Untitled report). pp. 21-25 in Kujira
no seitai oyobi koudou ni kansuru hearing
jouhousho [Report on the Ecology and
Behaviour of Whales [sic]]. 1986 March. No
publisher given
Otsuka, T. 1960. Shokumotsu Shokuji-shi. TokyoYuzankaku
Passim, Herbert and John W. Bennett. 1943. Social Process
and Dietary Change. Washington: National
resources Council Bulletin #103
Pimentel, David and M. Pimentel. 1979. Food, Energy, andSociety. N.Y. Wiley
Powdermaker, Hortense. 1932. Feasts in New Ireland:
The Social Function of Eating. American
Anthropologist 34: 236-247
Prime Minister’s Office. 1988. Opinion Survey on Eating
Habits and Roles of Farm Villages. Tokyo:
Foreign Press Center
Reid, Janice. 1986. Land of Milk and Honey: The Chaning
Meaning of Food to an Australian Aboriginal
Community. pp. 49-66 in L. Manderson (ed).
Shared wealth and symbol: Food Culture andSociety in Oceania. Cambridge: Cam. U. Press
Robson, J. (ed) 1980. Food, Ecology, and Culture. Readingsin the Anthropology of Dietary Practices. New

York: Gordon & BeachRoss, Eric B. 1980. Patterns of Diet and Forces of
Production: An Economic and EcologicalHistory of the Ascendancy of Beef in the US
Diet. pp. 181-228 in E.Ross (ed) Beyond theMyths of Culture. N.Y.: Academic Press
Rozin, Paul. 1987. Psychobiological Perspectives on Food
Preferences and Avoidances. pp. 181-205 in M.
Harris and E. Ross (eds) Food and Evolution:
Toward a Theory of Human Food Habits
Segawa, K. 1964. Nihonjin no ishokuji. Tokyo: Kawade
Shobo
Shimaguchi, Mitsuaki. 1978. Marketing Channels in Japan.
n.p.: UMI research Press
Suminoe, K. 1962. Nihon no sake. Tokyo: Kawade Shobo
Takahashi, Junichi. 1990. Personal Communication
Tannahill, R. 1973. Food in History. N.Y.: Stein & Day
Tsuchida, Tetsuji. 1985 April. Chiisana hogeisen. Series
on Abashiri’s STCW. Hokkaido Shimbun,
Evening Edition
Tsukazaki, S. 1962. Nihonjin no shokuji. Tokyo: Iwasaki
ShotenTwigg, Julia. 1983. Vegetarianism and the Meaning of
Meat. pp. 18-30 in A. Murcott (ed). The
Sociology of Food and Eating. Aldershot: Gower
Walcher, D.N., N. Kretchmer & H.L. Barnett (eds). 1976.
Foods, Man and Society. N.Y.: Plenum Press
Yanagimo, M., S. Ohya and T. Yanagimo. 1987. The Trendof Seasonality of Processed Food Consumption
in Japan by a New Statistical Method. Journal of
the Japanese society of food 34 (10): 647-653
Yanagita, Kunio. 1962. Tabemono to shinko [Food andBelief, in Japanese]. Vol.14 in K. Yanagita
Teihon: Yanagita Kunio Zenshu. Tokyo:
Chikuma Shobo
Yoshio, M.Y. 1971. The Japanese Marketing System:
Adaptations and Innovations. Cambridge: The
MIT Press219

IWC/44/SEST2

220

IWC/44/SEST3

COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF WHALE MEAT
— AN OVERVIEW —The Government of Japan1992

adversely distort the price structure in the local community(Government of Japan, 1990a).
Just before the moratorium, overall Ayukawa
wholesalers and boat owners agree in their latest estimatesthat about 30% of the red meat from minke whales landed
in Ayukawa and sold through the Fish Market remains in
the region and the rest go into inter-regional or national
distribution. In Hokkaido, approximately 60% of the whale
products is distributed and sold within Abashiri and its
surrounding area, and a further 30% elsewhere in Hokkaido(Akimichi et al., 1988).

At the last meeting of TECHNICAL COMMITTEEWORKING GROUP ON SOCIO-ECONOMICIMPLICATIONS AND SMALL-TYPE WHALING heldin May 1992 in Reykjavik, some participants requested
that information on the proportion of certain grades ofmeat not consumed locally, but sold in more distantmarkets be provided (Chairman’s Report of the 43rd
Meeting). In response to the question, following are ouranswers:

1.

WHY SOME PART OF THE MEATFROM STCW (SMALL-TYPE COASTAL
WHALING) SOLD IN DISTANT
MARKETS? WHAT IS THE RECENT
ESTIMATION OF THE QUANTITY OF
MEAT SOLD OUTSIDE OF THE
REGION?

2.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE OF
COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION
BETWEEN STCW AND OTHER TYPES
OF WHALING?

The STCW fishery has been directed to meeting theconsumption needs for fresh whale meat in the local
communities that can reasonably be served by that restrictedscale of operation. Minke meat spoils quickly and so would
reach discerning consumers in an unacceptable condition
unless the carcass is quickly flensed after capture of whales(Government of Japan, 1990a).
LTCW (Large-Type Coastal Whaling) produces large
quantities of meat from each boat voyage far greater than
the small local community could consume. The LTCW
landing stations usually had the capacity of freeze, salt, can,or otherwise process the meat eventual sale elsewhere. Apartfrom the lack of local capacity to consume the large
quantities of meat produced from LTCW operations, thelocal food culture was based predominantly on whale meatproduced from the STCW fresh-meat fishery (Governmentof Japan, 1990a).
However, the main contrast occurs in the mannercommercial distribution was controlled. The LTCW
companies were involved in capture, processing, distribution
and wholesaling of the whale product; they controlled eachphase of the operation and so the role of local or distantmarket middlemen was largely excluded. Decisions as towhere and when to market the product to maximize theeconomic return were made from a corporate markets inTokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, Fukuoka, Nagasaki, or elsewhere.
The product, being frozen or processed, could be held backfrom markets to be released when prices were higher. On
the other hand, the STCW companies only produced thecarcass, and in some case undertook to also flense thewhales. The STCW companies do not undertake commercial

Generally, the relatively small quantity of productavailable on any given day was not attractive to distantbuyers wishing to serve the large metropolitan markets, as
the quantity available was too small and the uncertainty insupply of whale meant that only small-scale distributions
were attracted to this particular fishery (Government ofJapan, 1990a).
However, in the last few years due to interruptions in
supply of whale meat throughout Japan, distortions haveoccurred in marketing such that, combined with theattendant rising price, some of the minke meat has beenpurchased by brokers for sale to more distant markets.
There is a second reason for sale of STCW whale meatoutside of the meat-producing community, and this relates
to price. Whale meat are graded by quality, e.g. four gradesof red meat (A through D). The most expensive grade (A)and one of the middle-grade red meats (C) was hardly
saleable in the local communities: the A grade was too
expensive, the C was expensive relative to the better-quality
B grade meat. On the other hand the poorest quality meat(D) was so inexpensive that it was all consumed locally,
and the B quality meat was suitable for all culturally
significant culinary and ritual purposes. So grade A and C
meat, for which no large demand existed in the local
whaling community was sold outside. This is adaptive in
two important respects: obtaining higher price for some of
the meat outside of the STCW community in a sense
subsidized the local consumption of meat by allowing local
consumers to enjoy lower meat prices and secondly,
ensuring any periodic oversupply of meat does not

221IWC/44/SEST3

processing, distribution, or wholesaling; this is carried out
by local processors or distributors, having their own
customers (e.g., retail stores, hotels, inn keepers, etc.)(Government of Japan, 1990a).
Pelagic whaling, the other forms of Japanese whaling,
was characterized by a centralized, national distribution
network. The whale meat from pelagic whaling was landed
at central ports in freezer ships and belonged to urban,
centrally controlled national corporations. The product wastransported to central wholesale warehouses from where it
was trucked to wholesale markets to be auctioned to thehighest bidder. The product was marketed primarily to
consumers in large urban centers. STCW whale meat
however, is landed (unfrozen) at one of the STCW
communities and passes through local distributors andmarkets. The bidders for the whalemeat are generally local
buyers (Braund et al, 1989).

3.

since that time (Government of Japan, 1990a).

4.

WHAT IS THE NON-COMMERCIAL
DISTRIBUTION OF WHALE MEAT IN
THE STCW COMMUNITIESIn addition to the commercial distributions, there areother customary and socially obligatory exchanges
throughout the whale harvesting cycle. Such exchange
involve a large number of people who live in the whaling
community concerned, but who may not be directly
connected with whaling itself (Akimichi et al., 1988). It is
often said in Ayukawa that “Fish are to be bought but whale
meat are given free”. From a survey in Ayukawa, one
estimation can be made that approximately 12% of the total
quantity of meat was used for such exchange without any
commercial distribution (Government of Japan, 1990b;
Braund at al., 1990). Further, there are unknown additionalamounts of meat that are purchased and then enter into
gifting cycle (Government of Japan, 1990b).
At the same time, however, there are critical questions
on such quantitative approaches. Can quantitative surveys
impute a measure (agreeable to all) for ‘cultural value’placed on the purchase or use of whale meant? How are weto know whether a small quantity of whale meat used in a
religious or ritual ceremony has less (or more) cultural value
than much larger amounts consumed in a family meal or
dining out with friends at a restaurant? It should rememberedthat formally served meals in restaurants are a normal wayof celebrating many culturally important social andceremonial events in Japan. Those answers cannot be
obtained and were they to be attempted their interpretation
would likely be endlessly disputed (Government of Japan,
1990a). In light of this, we have prepared and are submitting
various documents using the more reasonable approachcommonly found in the social sciences.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF
COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF
WHALE MEAT FROM STCW?

Before considering this subject, it should be noted thatsome IWC participants pointed out in the previous
discussion on STCW that (1) even barter is commerce, (2)in any economy with high value placed on sharing andgifting, one cannot clearly distinguish between commercial
and non-commercial transactions because of the importanceaccorded the use to which a product is subsequently put,and (3) that using cash is to some people seen as somehow
wrong, but carrying out the same economic transaction
without cash is somehow acceptable.
Japan has been a monetized society for many centuries,
and it is difficult to imagine how any contemporarycommunity could continue to function without the extensive
involvement of monetized commercial transactions.
Commercialized transactions involving whale meatfrom STCW take place only at certain stages in the chain of
harvesting, processing and consumption of whales, and arepart of a distributive system that is itself characterized by ahigh degree of emphasis on important pre-existing social relationship between buyers and sellers (Akimichi et al., 1988).
It is worth emphasizing here that whaling in Japan isdistinctive in many respects compared to whaling in othersocieties, and that the basis of these differences in theJapanese case have deep historical roots. Since its earliest
net-whaling beginnings, Japanese whaling enterprises
constituted important commercial and economic
institutions, indeed in feudal times whaling groups formed
the largest industrial enterprises in Japan. In the Japanesewhaling, the use of cash has long been important
traditionally as a way of creating social acceptance orsolidarity between the various parties needed to co-operate
to ensure a successful whaling enterprise. Thus it can beseen that the economic practices sustaining and being
sustained by Japanese STCW exactly mirror the practices
having taken place for almost four centuries and maintained

REFERENCES CITED
Akimichi, Asquith, Befu, Bestor, Braund, Freeman,
Hardacre, Iwasaki, Kalland, Manderson,
Moeran, and Takahashi, 1988. Small-Type
Coastal Whaling in Japan: Report of anInternational Workshop. (IWC/40/23)
Braund, Freeman, and Iwasaki-Goodman, 1989.
Contemporary Socio-cultural Characteristics ofJapanese Small-Type Coastal Whaling. (TC/41/
STW1)
Braund, Freeman, Kruse, and Takahashi, 1990.
Quantification of Local Need for Minke Whale
Meat for Ayukawa Based Minke Whale
Fishery. (TC/42/SESTB)
Government of Japan, 1990a. Distinguishing Between
Japanese STCW and LTCW in Relation to
Coastal Whale Fishery Management. (TC/42/
SEST3)
Government of Japan, 1990b. Japan’s Answers to Questions
on Japanese STCW. (TC/42/SEST9)222

IWC/44/SEST4

THE IMPORTANCE OF EVERYDAY FOOD USE
The Government of Japan1992

THE IMPORTANCE OF EVERYDAY FOOD
USE

distinctiveness of everyday-meal form and content.
Discussion of TC/4-3/SEST1 indicated that somecontinued to question the cultural and social significanceof staple items in a peoples’ customary diet. Accordingly,
the present paper will attempt to better explain, by reference
to findings readily available in published scholarly sources,
the fact that everyday staple dietary items are believed by
specialists in the appropriate science fields to possess highly
significant cultural and social importance. This importanceextends beyond the individual, and operates also at the levelof the group, including the family, household, community
and in some cases, the wider ethnic or national group.
Sources Consulted to Ensure this Report Is
Authoritative
To better ensure that no important social science
authorities were overlooked when writing the present paper,a leading anthropologist of food (Professor Eugene N.
Anderson, at the University of California) was asked toprovide explicit source references to the issue of the cultural
importance of everyday food. He responded by letter (dated
December 12, 1991):“... any good general anthro [pological] text fromthe old days should do.... Trouble is, it’s such ananthropological truism that I don’t know where to
get a quick reference for it.... It was one of thosepoints that was so thoroughly kicked around in theclassic days of Tylor, Durkheim, Frazer, W.
Robertson Smith, et al. that no one bothers to talkabout it now. The most famous comment is in LeviStraussí Totemism....”The earlier paper (TC/43/SEST1) referenced the worksof twenty-seven leading social scientists, including such
scholars as Margaret Arnott, Marvin Harris, Francis
Johnston and Margaret Mead (all from the U.S.A.), Mary
Douglas and Jack Goody (U.K.), Claude Levi-Strauss(France), and Lenore Manderson (Australia). A number of
additional authorities are cited in the present paper whichattempts to explain, in response to questions asked about
TC/43/SEST1, why everyday food use is considered by
specialists to have significant cultural and social importanceto the maintenance of individual, family and community
identity and wellbeing.
The Evidence so far Provided: A Brief Review
In 1990 TC/42/SEST8 was tabled; the 38-page report,
prepared by S.R. Braund and Associates, of Anchorage,
Alaska, described the results of a questionnaire-based
survey carried out in three communities adjacent to andwithin the traditional localized whale meat consumption

Among the more important reasons traditional whaledependent societies continue valuing whale products is inorder to maintain their customary diet. This fooddependence is not merely the result of the high nutritional
content of edible whale products. Rather, the importanceof whale-based foods in these particular societies resultsfrom the distinctive cultural valuations variously associatedwith the harvesting, processing, distribution, preparationand consumption of the product. It is these cultural attributes
associated with, more especially the consumption of, whale
meat for which substitutes do not exist. This report only
considers the cultural value of consuming whalemeat, notits production or distribution. As has been argued in earlier
reports (see below), these cultural attributes are of suchtraditional importance that their non fulfilment causesvarying degrees of social, cultural and psychologicaldamage to the members of the affected communities. In
certain cases these impacts in aggregate dangerously
undermine the continued viability of the total communities.
A Brief Summary of Earlier Relevant Reports to IWC
A number of past reports to the IWC have detailed themore important cultural and social characteristics ofJapanese small-type whaling (e.g. TC/38/AS2; IWC/39/25;
IWC/40/23; TC/41/STW1; TC/41/STW2; IWC/41/SE3)
and the consequent negative socio-economic and culturalconsequences of a continuing zero-catch quota of minke
whales (e.g., IWC/41/21; IWC/41/SE1; TC/42/SEST2).
However, as the cultural nature of these Japanesesocieties is unfamiliar to many, and the anthropologicalunderstanding upon which the research was based is
likewise generally unfamiliar, some Working Group
members indicated that difficulties remained in interpreting
the results. This difficulty centred upon appreciating thecultural significance of everyday food use.
How Culturally Important is Everyday Food Use?
As a consequence of the particular problem expressed
concerning the cultural significance of everyday food use,
additional material was subsequently provided in TC/43/
SESTI. This later report, by making reference to a numberof authoritative published studies, indicated that experts inthe appropriate social science fields, when studying thecultural and social importance of food, do not restrict theirattention to highly festive (and invariably low frequency)
meals or feasts. On the contrary, food cultures areconstituted and distinguished more especially by those highfrequency practices which provide the characteristic223

IWC/44/SEST4

area supplied by Ayukawa-based whaling operations. The
survey was based upon methods successfully adopted toquantify the culturally important uses of whale meat in
Alaska.
The results indicated that of the 30 empirically identified
culturally significant uses of whale meat in the non-whaling
households surveyed, about half the uses have decidedly
Buddhist or Shinto religious significance. More than half
the remaining whale meat uses (which also help sustain
locally important social and cultural traditions) also had
minor religious significance.
In addition to these community-wide functions carriedout by non-whaling households, there also exist extensive
gift-giving obligations among the small number of whale
boat owners. Though these formal gifting practices
necessarily involve smaller amounts of whale meat thanthat utilized by non-whaling households, such behavior(despite the small quantity of meat involved) neverthelessmakes a very significant contribution to sustaining
community solidarity and locally important traditional
cultural institutions.
Quantifying the Cultural Need for Whale Meat
Consumption
The cultural demand represented by the assessedfrequency of whale meat use in these communities, wasconverted to the required quantity of meat by adopting
conservative meal-serving weights for the six main whalemeat preparation methods used in this particular foodculture district. Considerable space in TC/42/SEST8 wasdevoted to a critical discussion of the methodology utilized
in this quantitative study.
This informant-recall survey (employing an accepted
methodology in food science studies) was based upon asampling method capable of providing results accurate
within four percentage points with 95 percent confidence.
Satisfactory corroboration of the results was obtained froma survey carried out at the same time, in one of the threecommunities, which was based upon whale meat
consumption in 1988-89.
Questions Arising from Discussion of the CulturalNeed Study
One of the thirty culturally significant uses of whale
meat identified in the study reported in TC/42/SEST8 was
consumption in everyday meals. As whale meat is a staple
dietary item in whaling communities it follows that a greater
quantity is consumed on a daily basis in everyday meals
than for other lower-frequency calendrical events (say atfunerals, or at New Year or on All Souls Day).
However, discussion of TC/42/SEST8 suggested that forsome people, everyday use of staple items is believed to have
limited cultural significance. To further explain the culturaland social importance of everyday food use, the following
year TC/43/SEST1 was tabled. This 1991 report was in two
parts: the first part explained the cultural importance ofeveryday food use in more generalized, global, terms whilst
the second part addressed the cultural importance of everyday

food use within the context of Japanese food culture and thatof STW communities in particular.
The general case considered. By reviewing the current
social science literature, it is apparent that specialists
recognize that diet exerts a stronger cultural influence upon
human affairs than do other cultural influences, including
language. The reason for this is because the form and content
of the meal, to which members of society are enculturated
at an early age, inter alia signifies and reinforces suchimportant basic social organizational features as family andgender relations. Equally important, dietary decisions are
suffused with society’s ethical and moral orientations,through such notions as good and bad, or permissible andnon-permissible.
The profound effects on the individual, the family orhousehold, and the community that may be associated withchanges in dietary practices were also discussed in the paper.
In particular, the several negative implications of destroying
viable rural adaptations based upon food-extractive
activities was introduced, a matter having importantenvironmental, social and health policy implications.
The Japanese whaling community case. The second partof TC/43/SEST1 focused attention upon the specifics ofeating whale meat and blubber in the Japanese STW context.
There are six separate criteria that require to be satisfied
when choosing the appropriate food items, food preparation
methods and eating occasions. When comparing highfrequency everyday food use and low-frequency ceremonial
use it is seen that whale products are able to provide
culturally appropriate attributes satisfying the required
criteria in each case.
Given the prevailing and slow-changing cultural beliefs
found in traditional Japanese whaling communities,
substitute foods can only partially satisfy the required setsof cultural criteria that whale products are able to fully
satisfy. The result of imposing the need for food substitution
is a diminished sense of wellbeing that translates into thesocial, psychological and health problems variously
documented in earlier IWC reports (e.g. IWC/41/21; IWC/
41/SE3).
Why is Selling Whalemeat Considered so Importantat the IWC?
Despite the large amount of cultural activity associatedwith whale meat, it is observed that most attention during
discussion of STW focuses upon the manner in which whale
meat moves from producer to consumer. It is important toquestion the justification for directing so much attention,
during discussions about Japanese small-type whaling,
toward only one aspect of the economic activities ofwhalers, namely the selling of whale meat in thecommunities.
In an overall assessment of cultural need, within thecontext of overall community needs, one single aspect of
the economic behavior of the half-dozen boat owners would
seem to merit minor attention, relative to the far morediverse and locally important cultural, social, economic,

224

The Importance of Everyday Food Use
nutritional and health benefits that potentially thousands ofcommunity members derive from these productive
activities.
The Cultural Importance of Everyday Food Use:
Further Evidence
In the interest of improved understanding of the cultural,social and health consequences of the continued impositionof the zero-catch quota, the remainder of this report further
expands upon the reasons for considering that everyday
customary food use has significant cultural value.
The notion that food is important, even basic, in bothordering and maintaining social relationships is an ancient
one in the social sciences. About fifty years ago, American
anthropologist John W. Bennett wrote:“In the literature covering the sociology of diet there
is a growing tendency to consider food as anindicator of cultural values and social processes. In
all societies, whether folk or urban, attitudes towardfood tend to become implicated in the social
structure — food is both object and subject of thesocial structure.”(Bennett 1943: 561)
In a recently published review of cultural aspects offood and diet, a specialist on the topic has summarized theaccepted contemporary understanding in these terms:“Food choices imply shared meanings among
members of a culture or sub-culture. The use ofparticular foodstuffs may indicate social distinctions
in a society and the degree to which the society
interacts with others and may serve as a locus andindicator of social roles and ideology... food choices
are among the most persistent of cultural facts. Main
food items are retained under great pressure tochange, even when items of lesser significance forthe culture are dropped, modified or adopted fromthe outside... the choice of the food event... in its
totality relates to aesthetic and cultural concerns
which go well beyond questions of food availability.
Food choices... are inevitably constrained bycultural practices... meals in different cultures areconstructed according to sets of identifiable rules
which reflect a variety of ideological, symbolic,social or other concerns in a culture.”(Ashkenazi 1991: 287-288).
Given this degree of integration of foodways into thevery fundamental ordering of all societies, there is little
wonder that dietary patterns are generally conservative,
though of course, changes do occur. These changes to thediet occur when the alterations do not challenge thegastronomic rules that reflect a community’s social,symbolic, moral and esthetic norms. A leading British
authority on the study of food wrote:“... enormous changes have taken place in society
at large in the last 50 years.... One would expect
food habits to have changed commensurately. But
the literature... emphasizes the very opposite. It

seems to be taken as axiomatic that the British
public is conservative in its food habits. Those who
would promote new food are conscious of strongly
entrenched attitudes... one gets the impression thatwhen everything else changes, food systems arestable. However open-minded a population may,after the event, prove to have been in its readinessto adopt new crops, clothes and transport, in mattersof food it... is likely to display a diehard
conservatism.”(Douglas 1975: 13-14).
In the health policy area this ‘diehard conservatism’
toward familiar foods is well known and can prove
problematic: people continue eating various healthcompromising foods despite knowing of the potential
dangers. It is too often the case that people find it quitedifficult, virtually impossible in fact, to fundamentallychange customary eating habits. People, it seems, cannot
be entirely ‘rational’ about diet. It is reported in England,for example, that “in spite of people being bombarded withfacts about healthy diet, chip [fried] potatoes are still as
popular as ever and are included with 30 percent of all
meals.”(Heald 1987: 75).
The Cultural Value of the English Breakfast.
In order to better appreciate why people seek to retain
traditional patterns of everyday food use, which is importantto an appreciation of why whale meat consumption remainsof such great importance to members of Japanese smalltype whaling communities in particular, some examples canbe provided from the sociological literature. As has beensuggested earlier, it is apparent that beliefs concerning thenutritional value of particular foods are not the only reasonsfor the maintenance of traditional dietary habits. Indeed, if
this were the case, then substitution of foods having equal
or greater nutritional value would be relatively easy toaccomplish.
Foods or meals that were once regarded as indispensable
may be retained in the diet, as an ideal, long after aseemingly rational (viz. nutritional) basis of that belief has
been disproved:“Few Englishwomen, trained to use all theirintellectual facilities at Oxford University, stop toquestion the truth of what they assert with such
authority to their husbands and children, that a hotbreakfast of porridge, bacon and eggs is essential
for proper nutrition regardless of the millions
outside England who subsist without these itemsin the morning. And few equally well educatedAmericans would challenge the allegedly scientificbasis for the importance for optimal humanefficiency of a daily glass of orange juice.”(Pyke 1968: 37).
In fact there are millions in Britain for whom breakfast
is not a hot cooked meal, but a cold snack (Douglas 1975:
16-17). The hot cooked breakfast is an ideal (despite the225IWC/44/SEST4

damage that eggs and bacon can cause the human cardiovascular system), relating not to (erroneous) nutritional
standards but rather to social class, which remains animportant feature of British social structure.
This belief in the need to perpetuate an important dietary
norm or ideal, because of its association with an important
non-dietary cultural value (namely membership in aparticular social group) illustrates the important relationshipexisting between a mundane everyday meal and a basic
feature of social structure. In such ways do everyday fooditems or meal events assume their elevated cultural
importance. Below, we point out the relevance of the wellknown stratification (emphasizing class distinctions)existing in British society and the extreme hierarchicalnature (based on other criteria of rank) of Japanese society.
The Cultural Basis for Believing Cows’ Milk to beImportant
To further elaborate on the notion of ‘symbolic’ or‘associational’ importance of particular foods, an important
aspect of the fidelity to a whale meat diet found in certain
regions of Japan, it is helpful to consider the status accorded
to fresh milk in American and certain European diets.
Indeed, cows’ milk has been accorded the status of asuperfood (at least for children) in North America (Bryant
et al. 1981: 84; Scrimshaw 1983: 236). Yet, before
pasteurization, or refrigeration was widely available, cows’
milk was dangerous to human health, and more especiallyto infants’ and children’s health (Pyke 1968: 77-78). The
answer to this seeming puzzle is to be found in milk’s
symbolic or associated social values, and not its physicalproperties.
To understand this statement it is important to rememberthat in earlier times fresh milk was not a common
commodity, even on farms. This shortage resulted from thelimited ability of cows to produce milk (before animal
breeding overcame this biological limitation), andassociated problems of holding and transporting fresh milk
to market. Thus the presence of fresh milk in sufficientquantity to be able to drink it (rather than convert it to butteror cheese for sale) was a symbol of farming or financial
success and consequent superior social status in thecommunity.
Furthermore, in explaining the growth of milk drinking
in the generally unhealthy cities of the day, the use of freshmilk was more than just an indicator of comfortableeconomic status: it became an important symbol of healthyrural, and even healthy urban, living to which people
naturally inclined (Bennett 1943: 563).
Food and Cultural Convictions
Even though infants throughout the world feed onmothers’ milk, the utilization of animals’ milk is by nomeans universal. In some cultures, milk of other animals isviewed as an undrinkable animal excretion, as repugnant
as urine or feces (Bryant et al. 1981: 75). In similar vein,the flesh of some (and in some cases, all) animals is
considered dirty, disgusting and uneatable by wholesocieties.

Indeed, such views on the unacceptability of meat asfood may be held by a small proportion of people in thosesocieties otherwise characterized as possessing meat-based
cuisines: to some American and European vegetarians, themeat of any animal (although sometimes excluding fish andinvertebrates) is disgusting, unhealthy and unthinkable as
food. That such groups of people are often very active inpromoting their dietary beliefs indicates once again the very
close association between everyday dietary practices andmatters of a significant cultural and ideological nature.
Food and Belonging
An extensive anthropological and sociological literature
makes it quite clear that foods and meal events, even of aperfectly commonplace nature, are strongly associated withcreating and maintaining close interpersonal relationships.
Indeed, membership in social groups, or a desire to be
accepted, is often marked and reaffirmed by offering food,as with the confection taken as a gift when visiting, orentertaining a visitor with food and drink. This is especiallythe case in business relationships where the nature of theinterpersonal relationship may involve risk and uncertainty:“We know that in many cultures no business canbe discussed, from the simplest to the mostcomplex, until food and drink have been shared. It
is said... that this sharing of food implies a kinshipbetween participants which should predispose them
toward positive interrelationships... [on the otherhand] the aura of kinship which sharing a meal
evokes, the social acceptance and general cordiality
implied, account for the strong opposition to sharing
not only a meal but an eating place as well, whichsome groups exhibit toward those they hold asenemies or inferiors.”(Shack 1978: 220).
Though this symbolic and affective importance of foodsharing is probably universal, in societies where regional
cuisines or ethnic diversity is marked, food serves especially
important functions. For example, for one country largely
peopled by immigrants it has been observed:“Few subjects occupy a larger place in the American
consciousness than food. In both a literal andfigurative sense, food serves to define individualand group identities; culturally acquired andnurtured matters of taste demark ethnic, regional,
racial and spiritual differences between Americans
that otherwise might lack concrete expression.
Indeed, within the maze of identities thatcharacterize contemporary American society, foodoffers one of the oldest and most evocative systemsof cultural identification.”(Camp 1980: 141).
Immigrants invariably seek to maintain their valued
ethnic identity by means of selected distinctive foods fromtheir homeland cuisine. However, this is accomplished notby way of the exotic foods or elaborate feasts formerly
served at high holidays in their countries of origin. But
rather, it is accomplished by keeping in the dietary the226The Importance of Everyday Food Useeveryday, commonplace foods that provides unmistakableaffirmation of distinctive cultural identity: German sausage,
salt herrings, goulash, tacos, gefilte fish, pasta, perogies,
lingonberries.”(e.g. Lowenberg et al. 1979)
The importance accorded the food item involves thedegree of multidimensional association that food item
(usually a staple enjoyed since childhood) invokes andreaffirms. The more everyday or commonplace the food,the more effectively it invokes a variety of important
cultural values.
Fidelity and Resistance to Change in Local Foodways
In the case of the American ‘melting pot’ society, it
has been observed that the distinctive foods in an ethnicallydiverse metropolitan city do not meld one into another.
Though it is possible to find restaurants that serve meals
from geographically diverse areas (Chinese and Anglo, orGreek and Lebanese foods say) the dishes remain quitedistinct, often listed on separate pages of the menu.
It is almost invariably the case that mainstream
American cooking remains basically Anglo in nature, andthat “each of the foreign cuisines remains isolated in its
own context. They do not borrow from one another, they
do not merge their separate styles into a common amalgam”(Kalcik 1984: 55). Thus in a restaurant serving both
Chinese and Anglo foods for example, a diner is not offeredbread or ketchup with a Chinese meal, nor green tea orsoy sauce with an Anglo meal. Even these mundane,
everyday foods and condiments serve their culturally
defined appropriate role.
Food, Meal Events and Hierarchical Societies
Particular everyday foods and meal events not only
serve important defining characteristics of ethnic or regionalgroups. Earlier, reference was made to the importance of aparticular everyday meal, the English breakfast, in relation
to individuals’ involvement with the class structure of thatparticular society. Indeed, in stratified societies, where caste,class or formal rank are highly developed and clearlysignalled by such markers as, e.g. speech, dress, occupation,etc., then foodways are among the most distinctive of all
cultural distinguishing features.
“A salient feature of the culinary cultures of the
major societies of Europe and Asia is theirassociation with hierarchical man. The extreme
form of this differentiation is found in the allocationof particular foods to specific roles, offices orclasses, swans to royalty in England, honey wine
to the nobility in Ethiopia.”(Goody 1982: 99).
The list of commonly known English and AngloAmerican food markers include such ‘high class’ foods as
pate, caviar, and smoked salmon, and lower ranked foods
such as macaroni and cheese, bologna/sausage, fish andchips. And of course, ‘real men’ don’t eat quiche!
Given the strength of association existing between
particular foods and rank in these stratified (i.e. ranked)
societies, then eating the foods of people of higher rank is

one vicarious but safe way of ‘moving up’ in society. In
this regard, as the middle class developed and grew inEurope, an important growth industry was the writing andpublication of cook books which allowed the new middle
class to indulge in the foods until then associated with thehigher-ranked class (ibid: 152).
This last discussion is entirely relevant for an informed
consideration of the cuisine of Japanese small-type whaling
communities (discussed in a companion report available tothe Working Group). There are few human societies morehierarchical in nature than those in Japan, where themeasured etiquette of bowing on meeting and leave taking,the precise choice of speech honorific, the extreme caretaken choosing a gift and gift-wrapping or arranging
appropriate seating at a meal, all attest to a ranked structure
maintained by everyday observances requiring attention
throughout the day as individuals engage in social
interaction. Indeed, this awareness of hierarchical ranking(based not on class, but on a host of other social criteria)
pervades all aspects of Japanese social behaviour and“without consciousness of ranking, life could not be carriedon smoothly in Japan, for rank is the social norm on which
Japanese life is based” (Nakane 1973: 33).
Conclusion
This report has reviewed current social science
understanding of the relationship existing between theeveryday use of appropriate and familiar foods and mattersof fundamental social and cultural importance to human groupexistence. Though the discussion has been theoretical innature, rather than focusing attention on the Japanese situation
alone, it is quite evident that these conclusions apply in equalfashion to the cultural and social circumstances existing inJapanese society, which issue is explicitly addressed in acompanion report available at this meeting.
References Cited
Ashkenazi, M. 1991. From Tachi Soba to Naori: Cultural
Implications of the Japanese Meal. Social
Science Information 30 (2): 287-304
Bennett, J.W. 1943. Food and Social Status in a Rural
Society. American Sociological Review 8: 561569
Bryant, C.A., A. Courtney, B. Markesbery and K. DeWalt
1981. The Cultural Feast: An Introduction to
Food and Society. St. Paul, Minnesota: West
Publishing Company
Camp, C. 1980. Foodways. In M.T. Inge (editor), Handbookof American Popular Culture, Volume 2.
Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press
Douglas, M. 1975. The Sociology of Bread. In A. Spicer(editor), Bread: Social, Nutritional andAgricultural Aspects of Wheaten Bread.
London: Applied Science Publishers
Goody, J. 1982. Cooking, Cuisine and Class: A Study in
Comparative Sociology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Heald, G. 1987. Trends in Eating Out. In R. Cotterell
227

IWC/44/SEST4(editor), Nutrition in Catering: The Impact of
Nutrition and Health Concepts on Catering
Practices. Camforth, England: Parthenon
Publishing Group
IWC/39/25. 1987. Japan’s Small-Type Subsistence
Whaling. Government of Japan
IWC/40/23. 1988. Small-Type Coastal Whaling in Japan:
Report of an International Workshop. T.
Akimichi, P.J. Asquith, H. Befu, T.C. Bestor,
S.R. Braund, M.M.R. Freeman, H. Hardacre,
M. Iwasaki, A. Kalland, L. Manderson, B.D.
Moeran and J. Takahashi. Occasional Paper 27,
Boreal Institute for Northern Studies, Edmonton
IWC/41/SE1. 1989. Socio-Economic Implications of a
Zero-Catch Limit on Distribution Channels andRelated Activities in Hokkaido and Miyagi
Prefectures. T.C. Bestor
IWC/41/SE3. 1989. Small-Type Coastal Whaling in
Ayukawa. L. Manderson and H. Hardacre
Kalcik, S. 1984. Ethnic Foodways in America: Symbol and
the Performance of Identity. In L.K. Brown andK. Mussell (editors), Ethnic and Regional
Foodways in the United States: The
Performance of Group Identity. Knoxville:
University of Tennessee Press
Lowenberg, M.E., E.N. Todhunter, E.D. Wilson, J.R.
Savage and J.L. Lubawski 1979. Food andPeople. 3rd Edition. New York: John Wiley and
Sons

Nakane, C. 1973. Japanese Society. Harmondsworth,England: Penguin Books
Pyke, M. 1968. Food and Society. London: John Murray
Scrimshaw, N.S. 1983. Food: Past, Present and Future. In
D.J. Ortner (editor), How Humans Adapt: A
Biocultural Odyssey. Washington, D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution Press
Shack, D.N. 1978. Taster’s Choice: Social and Cultural
Determinants of Food Preference. In J. Yudkin(editor), Diet and Man: Needs and Wants.
London: Applied Science Publishers
TC/38/AS2. 1986. Small-Type Whaling in Japan’s Coastal
Seas. Government of Japan
TC/41/STW1. 1989. Contemporary Socio-Cultural
Characteristics of Japanese Small-Type Coastal
Whaling. S.R. Braund, M.M.R. Freeman and
M. Iwasaki
TC/41/STW2. 1989. Japanese Whaling Culture:Continuities and Diversities. J. Takahashi, B.D.
Moeran and T.C. Bestor
TC/42/SEST2. 1990. Socio-Economic Countermeasures in
the Four Japanese STCW Communities.
Government of Japan
TC/42/SEST8. 1990. Quantification of Local Need for
Minke Whale for the Ayukawa-Based Minke
Whale Fishery. S.R. Braund, J. Takahashi, J.A.
Kruse and M. Freeman
TC/43/SEST1. 1991. The Cultural Significance of Everyday
Food Use. Government of Japan228

IWC/44/SEST5

A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENCASH ECONOMIES AND SUBSISTENCE ACTIVITIESThe Government of Japan
1992

ABSTRACTparticipating in IWC discussions fail to recognize that nonaboriginal people also practice subsistence. There is a failure
to recognize that ‘subsistence’ and ‘commercial’ are false
opposites and therefore cannot alone provide aninappropriate basis for regulating whale fisheries.
Over the past several decades definitions of‘aboriginal-subsistence’ (at the IWC) and ‘subsistence’ (inNorth American legal and regulatory practice) havechanged as changing circumstances and scientificunderstanding improved. This report is offered as acontribution to better decision-making in respect tosubsistence whale fisheries, whether conducted byaboriginal or non-aboriginal people.

Controversy surrounding the term ‘subsistence’ resultsfrom its widespread misuse in everyday speech as well as
in many jurisdictional situations where it is applied in theabsence of an appropriate definition. Despite thesemisunderstandings, the term subsistence is usually welldefined and unambiguously used in the (specialist) scientific
literature.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a full explanationof how the term subsistence is currently defined and usedin recent scientific studies, and to make clear the relationshipthat exists between subsistence and those economic systems
with which it is integrated in varying degree.
Much of the critical research on the nature of subsistence
has been carried out in Arctic hunting and fishing societies,
most of which are heavily dependent upon harvesting andconsuming marine living resources. In view of this,particular attention will be given to those recent researchunderstandings of subsistence that are likely to assist in
resolving the continuing definitional problems encounteredduring IWC discussion.

SEMANTIC AND CLASSIFICATORYMUDDLESThe term ‘subsistence’ in everyday speech commonly
implies bare existence or a livelihood that only provides inminimal degree life’s necessities. This is only one of several
definitions of the term ‘subsistence’ provided in dictionariesof the English language. (See Note 1.)
In the context of the IWC, ‘subsistence’ is generally
linked to an equally ambiguous term ‘aboriginal’.
Ambiguity exists, not only because the term ‘aboriginal’ is
not defined, but because it is considered as interchangeablewith terms such as ‘indigenous’ and ‘native’ which in fact
have quite different meanings that vary according to context.
It seems likely that making a critical distinction between
the terms aboriginal, indigene and native in whaling matters
could indeed be useful, for in many fishery and wildlife
regimes preferred access is often provided to users who
demonstrate long-term dependence upon and priority useof local resources.
It appears that for many it is difficult to accept the ideathat non-aboriginal people engage in subsistance activities.
Though in IWC documents the terms ‘native’ and‘indigenous’ are used interchangeably with ‘aboriginal’,
only some natives (e.g. Inuit/Yuit, Greenlanders andBequians) are permitted by IWC to practice subsistence,
whereas some other natives (of Iceland, Japan, Korea,
Norway or Spain) cannot do so.
The main reason for this distinction appears to relate to
the belief that aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can be
categorically distinguished by reference to a simple
classification system involving such opposed characteristics
as:“primitive:advanced (in respect to technology)
simple:complex (social and political arrangements)

INTRODUCTION
The International Whaling Commission (IWC)
recognizes three forms of whaling: those conducted for
either commercial, aboriginal-subsistence, or research
purposes. The IWC is empowered by contracting parties to
set harvest quotas for stocks of certain species of whalethat are subject to either commercial or aboriginalsubsistence whaling interest. At the present time a zeroquota (i.e. a whaling moratorium) applies to all stocks ofbaleen and sperm whales subject to commercial
exploitation.
Aboriginal-subsistence whale fisheries are not subject
to this whaling moratorium. This exemption even applies
to so-called ‘protection stocks’ which, under IWC
management rules, are considered so seriously depleted as
to require full protection. In such cases, quotas are set at
low levels in order to partially satisfy the subsistence needof the whale-dependent communities and at the same timeallow recovery of the depleted whale stocks to occur.
However, at the present time IWC has a problem inproviding a similar selective exemption in order toaccommodate the subsistence needs of whale-dependentcommunities when the community members are nonaboriginal people.
This paper looks at some of the reasons underlying thispresent difficulty. For example, it appears that some229IWC/44/SEST5

traditional:non-traditional (‘culture’; see Note 2)
non-commercial:commercial (economictransactions)non-monetized:monetized (economic exchanges)
local:non-local (resource acquisition)
From this it seems that aboriginal whaling, at least in
idealized form, is characteristically ‘primitive’, ‘simple’,‘traditional’, ‘non-commercial’, ‘non-monetized’ and‘local’ in nature. In contrast to this ideal type is ‘commercial
whaling’, also treated as a single idealized, and equally
unreal, type.
However true such characterizations of aboriginal
whaling might have been in the past, in the modern world
they no longer apply.

In the past two or three years there have been two
implicit ‘rule’ changes in respect to aboriginal subsistence
whaling, that recognize the necessity of commercial saleand non-local consumption of whale meat in aboriginalsubsistence whaling operations in certain aboriginal whaling
communities (see Dahl 1989a; Petersen 1989; Josefson
1990; Caulfield 1991a).

THE MEANING OF SUBSISTENCE
To the non-specialist the term subsistence relates inimportant ways to an individual’s economic and material
circumstances. However, studies by specialists consistently
stress that the importance of subsistence activities only inpart relates to economic ends. For example, the criticalimportance of fish and wildlife harvesting to any group canbe assessed “by the extent to which that activity is central
to reproducing its social relations of production, forexample, through the socialization of children, mutual aid
and sharing, and the reinforcement of stewardship and use
arrangements with respect to land and resources” (Usher
1981: 61).
In support of the notion that subsistence involves issues
outside of the economic sphere, it is frequently noted thatsubsistence harvesting often persists when it is very
expensive in monetary terms and in some cases,
questionably cost-effective (Veltre and Veltre 1983: 185193; Dahl 1989b: 35). For example, a decade ago, theestimated capital cost of an Alaskan bowhead hunting
crew’s equipment was estimated at more than $10,000(Worl 1980: 312-313; IWC 1982: 39), and annual operating
costs to the captain were about $6,000 (Kruse 1986: 149).
Similar high costs have been noted for Canadian(Wenzel 1991: Table 6.13) and Greenlandic hunters(Caulfield 1991a: Table 9; 1991b: 18). In terms of realizing
strictly economic goals, these costs certainly appear large
when the probability of the crew successfully landing awhale may be quite small.
To explain this apparent economic irrationality requiresthat the true nature of the term ‘subsistence’ be understood.
In its most general yet technically correct formulation,
subsistence consists of those cultural values that sociallyintegrate the economic relations of particular groups ofpeople into their daily lives and environment (Wenzel 1991:
57). Thus, for subsistence to continue to operate depends
primarily upon secure social relations, and only secondarily
upon individual skills and special equipment.
Subsistence then “is a set of culturally establishedresponsibilities, rights and obligations that affect every man,woman and child each day” (ibid: 60). Subsistence activities
are those actions that contribute to the continued functioningof various essentially non-material aspects of the everyday
life of individuals and a community.
A subsistence society is understood to be a group ofpeople whose production, use and consumption of local
resources occurs in ways that are consistent with traditional
patterns maintained by kinship-based social structures.
Such societies possess detailed traditional knowledge of

CHANGING NOTIONS ABOUTABORIGINAL SUBSISTENCE WHALING
In 1931 the International Convention for the Regulationof Whaling (ICRW) provided an exemption for whaling
carried out by aboriginal people providing they only used“canoes, pirogues or other exclusively native craft propelledby oars or sails” and did not use firearms in whaling.
The 1946 revisions to the ICRW removed the earlier
restriction placed on the use of modern technology, and in1964 the requirement that only aboriginal people could
engage in aboriginal whaling was also removed.
At the present time it appears that the principal
regulatory requirement to be met in aboriginal whaling isthat the product is to be used locally by aboriginal people.
The term ‘aboriginal’ is not defined, though in definitionsof ‘aboriginal subsistence whaling’ and ‘local aboriginal
consumption’ (see below) the term is used interchangeably
with the terms ‘indigenous’ and ‘native’. According to a
1981 IWC report:“Aboriginal subsistence whaling means whaling,for purposes of aboriginal consumption carried out
by or on behalf of aboriginal, indigenous or native
people who share strong community, familial, socialand cultural ties related to a continuing traditional
dependence on whaling and on the use of whales.
“Local aboriginal consumption means the
traditional uses of whale products by local
aboriginal, indigenous or native communities inmeeting their nutritional, subsistence or culturalrequirements. The term includes trade in items
which are by-products of subsistence catches.”
In summary, it is evident that within the IWC a
progressive broadening of the criteria under which
aboriginal subsistence whaling is allowed has occurred.
First, the requirement that only traditional, non-mechanizedequipment could be used was changed, then processing of
the product outside of the community was permitted, thenaboriginal whaling could be carried out by non-aboriginal
people, and finally trade in by-products of the hunt became
permissible. These changes are explicitly stated in thewritten rules (the Schedule) of the International Whaling
Commission.
230

A Critical Evaluation of the Relationship between Cash Economies and Subsistence Activities
their environment, and particularly those resources important in their food-producing and ceremonial activities. Traditional knowledge, required for harvesting and processing
subsistence resources, is transmitted from generation to
generation principally by oral means and requires anextended period of learning through experience. Thisknowledge and experience are most often obtained by theindividual maintaining close association with an appropriate
member of the local community, who is often related bykinship or by some other socially meaningful arrangement.
Subsistence activities, with their emphasis upon local
production and consumption, enhance social relationships
within a local community. However, they may also servesocial and cultural ends among members of a larger, nonlocal, community of people who are linked through sharedlanguage, history, or culture (see Note 2).
Given the importance accorded to kinship in traditionbased societies, the ideal production unit continues to be
based upon skilled individuals at a household or family levelof organization. In such societies, large corporate groups
and a highly capitalized technological infrastructure (thebasis of the contrasting capitalist mode of production) are
not appropriate means of food production (Usher 1981: 58).
Indeed, in subsistence societies it is the relations amongpeople that wildlife harvesting generates and sustains, andnot the relations between people and resources, that are ofparamount importance (ibid: 61).
The importance of harvesting local food resources tothe health and reproduction of subsistence societies resides,
therefore, in the social values embedded in the various
components of the subsistence complex. It is the result of
the seasonal repetition and transfer of appropriate
knowledge and behaviour to succeeding generations thatimportant aspects, indeed core values, of the culture of thegroup are reproduced over time, and the cultural identity of
the individual and society thereby assured:“It is through capturing, processing, distributing,celebration, and consuming naturally occurring fish
and animal populations that subsistence societies
define the nutritional, physical health, economic,
social, cultural, and religious components of their
way of life.”(Langdon 1984: 3)

to the seasonal arrival, and variable yields, of fishand game resources;
4) substantial non-commercial networks forsharing, distributing and exchange of food andmaterials;5) traditional systems of land/water use andoccupancy;
6) complex inter-generation systems of belief,knowledge and values associated with resource
uses, passed on between generations as the culturaland oral traditions and customs of the society.
(After Wolfe 1983: 272)
In respect to the nature of these ‘mixed economies’
referred to above, the interrelatedness of subsistence andmarket economies is immediately apparent if one considers
the extent to which dependence upon imported andpurchased goods needed to engage in subsistence activities
has increased during, at least, this present century. For many
Alaskan natives “participation in the market sector of theeconomy through the commercial sale of fish and furs andthrough remunerative employment enables the hunter toparticipate in subsistence activities” (Wolfe 1986: 109).
In view of the high degree of dependence thatsubsistence harvesters have upon access to cash, it has
frequently been observed in Alaskan aboriginal societies,
that increasing cash incomes correlates with larger, notsmaller, quantities of subsistence-derived food in thehouseholders’ diet (Wolfe 1986: 113; Kruse 1991: 320;
Langdon 1991a: 283).

ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGISLATIVE
DEFINITIONS OF SUBSISTENCE
In 1978 the Alaska State Legislature passed a
subsistence law that recognized “the needs, customs andtraditions of Alaskan residents” and granted subsistence use
priority over other (commercial or recreational/sport) useof renewable resources.
In 1980 the U.S. Congress passed a federal law, The
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act(ANILCA), granting rural residents’ priority over urban
users of subsistence resources on federal lands.
However, a series of court cases in Alaska since 1985
(see Caldwell 1991) resulted in rural residents’ priority useof subsistence resources being challenged, and subsequently
ruled unconstitutional. As a result of these court decisions,
there is considerable uncertainty at the present time over
who in Alaska may or may not engage in subsistence,
though current proposals coming before the State
Legislature early in 1992, will likely reaffirm the priorityof subsistence use over other uses of the State’s fish andwildlife resources (Campbell 1991: 10).
In Alaska, the State Boards of Fish and Game do notplace trade or economic gain outside of subsistence use:“... use patterns in which the hunting or fishingeffort or the products of the effort are distributedor shared among others within a definablecommunity of persons, including through

TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF
SUBSISTENCE
In an extensive review of the substantial literaturedetailing subsistence activities occurring throughout Alaska,
these well-defined food-extractive systems are characterized
as possessing:1) a mixed economy, with mutually supportive
market and subsistence sectors;
2) a domestic mode of production, where
production capital, land and labour are controlled
by extended kin-based production units;
3) a stable and complex seasonal round of
production activities within the community, tied231

IWC/44/SEST5

THE USE OF MONETIZED TRANSACTIONSIN SUBSISTENCE

customary trade, barter, sharing and gift-giving...
[such] a community may include specific villages
or towns with a historical preponderance ofsubsistence users, and encompasses individuals,
families, or groups who in fact meet the criteria
described in this subsection;“... use patterns which include reliance forsubsistence purposes upon a wide diversity of the
fish and game resources of an area, and in whichthat pattern of subsistence uses provides substantial
economic, cultural, social, and nutritional elementsof the subsistence users life.”(Boards of Fish and Game, December 1981, quoted in
Langdon 1984: 26-27)

As these United States regulations make explicit,
monetary transactions are understood to be a necessary partof everyday subsistence harvesting. Indeed, cash is only
one medium of exchange among many, thus “theintroduction of cash into this system, either from wages orthe community store, does not necessarily indicate that theexchange is commercial rather than subsistence” (Lonner
1986: 21).
In one current court case the inland people of Tanana
claim that their commercial sale of salmon roe harvested
incidental to subsistence fishing constitutes customary trade,as allowed in the definition of subsistence (Caldwell 1991:
8). In other cases before the courts, the coastal Tlingit andHaida of southeast Alaska argue that their commercial saleof herring roe on kelp is culturally consistent with theirsubsistence use of this resource since at least the time ofcontact (Langdon 1991b).
In Greenland, as in Canada and Alaska, those
occupationally classed as hunters usually constitute the lowincome groups in society, such that financial compensationis required if a continued supply of the valued products
they alone can produce is to reach others in society. The
most suitable compensation occurs by way of money-based
trading in the town markets or through cash purchases fromthe hunters by wholesale buyers (see Table 1).
It is by these rational means that the important
distribution channels for traditional, indeed staple, foods
are maintained in even the most rural and traditional partsof contemporary Greenlandic society (IWC 1989). Indeed,in respect to Greenland aboriginal marine hunting andfishing activities, it has been concluded that thedifferentiation between commercial and non-commercial
activity is quite meaningless (Dahl 1989b: 40).
The Alaskan situation is similar to that existing inGreenland. In his comprehensive review of Alaskan
subsistence practices, Langdon writes: “the one mostimportant characteristic... is that subsistence is now
integrated with the cash economy in the lives of all Alaskan
Natives” (Langdon 1984: 5). That study points out thatcommercial exchange of subsistence products occurs in overhalf of the twelve native regions of Alaska, including, e.g.
the Arctic Slope, Bristol Bay, the Bering Straits (ibid: 8;
see e.g. Worl 1980: 314).
In a study of beluga whale hunting in northwest Alaska,
the 1982 cash price of the whale meat and muktuk being
sold locally was $4.50 per pound, and in food stores in the
distant city of Anchorage was $7.00 per pound (Feldman
1986: 159). However, in Alaska as in Canada, it appears
that in particular native communities some subsistence items
are not considered appropriate for selling (for cash) due totheir high symbolic or ritual significance (Fienup-Riordan
1986: 178).

BROADENING THE BASIS OFSUBSISTENCE IN ALASKA
It would appear that the proposed new subsistence law
in Alaska, in addition to reaffirming that subsistence use
has priority over other uses of renewable resources, proposes
moving away from the notion that subsistence is related tolong-term ‘customary and traditional’ use of resources. In
its place the focus is placed upon a particular way of life.
The proposed legislation will allow any resident having
at least one year of residence in Alaska to sign a declaration
stating that subsistence is and has been a principal characteristic of his or her way of life for three of the past five
years.
In the current Alaskan proposals, subsistence is definedas the taking and use of wild fish and game as part of a wayof life. Among six stated criteria to be satisfied for resource
use to be considered subsistence use, one is that the use“provides substantial economic, cultural, social or
nutritional elements of the subsistence user’s life”(Campbell 1991: 10).
Clearly, this proposed new legal order is designed toallow all those having lived in Alaska for at least one year
the choice of engaging in subsistence activities, irrespectiveof their cultural background, economic status or place ofresidence in the state. Consequently it will allow a person
engaging in commercial or recreational use to qualify as a
subsistence user of wildlife and fish resources. Subsistence
is confirmed as having important economic and foodproducing value to the user at the present time, irrespectiveof its importance, or lack of importance, to the earlier
circumstances of the current user and his or her family.
According to the Governor of Alaska:“Subsistence is not something that can be defined
only by where you live, or how much money you
make, or what race you are, but rather by how you
live. In discussions throughout the state, there has
been general agreement that subsistence is a wayof life.”(Hickel 1991).

232

A Critical Evaluation of the Relationship between Cash Economies and Subsistence Activities

DOES SUBSISTENCE PRODUCTION
DIFFER FROM COMMODITYPRODUCTION?

types of economic organization. In a large number ofdifferent small-scale foraging societies engaged insubsistence in, e.g., tropical rain forests, the Kalahari desert,or the Arctic, no simple distinction can be made between‘subsistence’ and ‘commercial’ transactions based on theuse or absence or cash or markets (see Note 3).
Indeed, questions such as “how much monetization?”or “what degree of market dependence?” in any given
society may be impossible to answer because such
relationships vary from individual to individual, fromhousehold to household, from market to market, from
commodity to commodity and from day to day. Thisdifficulty has been recognized in the scientific literature,
together with the consequent conclusion that it is unhelpful
and unwise to attempt to distinguish between ‘subsistence’and ‘commercial’ activities in regard to these mixedeconomy coastal whaling societies (e.g. Akimichi et al.
1988: 80-83; Dahl 1989b: 40; Caulfield 1991b: 3).
In conclusion it might be stated that the intent to sustain
local social, cultural and economic activity
intergenerationally in it’s essential form and content(notwithstanding ongoing changes to improve it’s efficiency
and safety) is the primary characteristic that distinguishes
subsistence and petty commodity enterprises on the one
hand from industrial (i.e., wholely commercial) enterprises
on the other.
In contrast, the principal goal of wholely commercial
economic enterprises is to achieve increased productivity/
profitability in order to maximize strictly economic goals.
In pursuit of these profit-maximizing goals, commercial
enterprises may become totally transformed so that, unlike
subsistence and petty-commodity enterprises, there is no
primary intent to ensure the enterprise’s reproduction isessentially unchanged form over time.

Subsistence activities, as detailed above, occur withina mixed economy that necessarily includes both market andnon-market transactions, both of which may involve cash
exchange. The use of cash or the use of the market therefore
does not provide a critical distinction between subsistence
and commercial operations.
Rather, the distinction between subsistence andcommercial activities are to be sought in the degree to whichmarket forces, as opposed to essentially non-market forces,
determine the purpose and extent of the economic activity.
These non-market forces usually involve such social
institutions and concerns as family, various alliances
extending beyond the family, community identity, andsocial status and prestige. Market forces, involving such
strictly economic factors as maximizing financial
profitability and competitive economic advantage(increased market share) do not apply to subsistence
activities.
The reason that subsistence persists in such nonindustrialized societies, despite the interaction that
occurs with powerful commercial forces that sustain thedominant society, is because subsistence satisfies
particularly important non-economic needs in suchsocieties, needs that can only be satisfied by either
engaging in subsistence or being enabled to consume
the products of subsistence. It is the continuingcommitment of members of these (often small and/or
distinct and peripheral) socio-cultural communities totheir distinctive identity, that sustains subsistence
production even as it diminishes in strictly economic
importance. This identity it should be noted, is mostoften related to particular systems of local resource use.

NOTES
CONCLUSIONS

1. To illustrate this potential for confusion that can exist
when inappropriate dictionary definitions of technicalterms are used, the word ‘dolphin’ has at least sevendictionary meanings, only one of which applies tomarine mammals. Even where the dictionary makes
reference to the marine mammal dolphin, it provides
varyingly accurate definitions to either the cetaceanfamily Delphinidae (Chambers 1988 and Oxford 1990)
or the two families Delphinidae and Platanistidae(Webster’s 1988). The term ‘dolphin’ also variously
applies to (1) a buoy, bollard or cluster of piles for boat
mooring, (2) a protective structure on a bridge, (3) aconstellation, (4) a spar on a ship, (5) variously a single
species (Oxford 1990), or two species of a single genus(Chambers 1988), or a whole family of marine fish
(Webster’s 1988), or (6) a South American freshwater
fish (Oxford 1990).
The word ‘fishery’ in the widely used Webster’s New

One of the sustaining beliefs of much environmentalist
thinking in recent years is that industrial (i.e. capitalist)
economic activity is necessarily harmful to environmental
preservation.
The basis of this belief is the Marxian notion that within‘primitive’ societies there was no development of cash orcommoditization, but that once these modern evils
penetrated such societies their disintegration and downfall
was set into motion.
However, such theoretical formulations are notsustained by empirical evidence, for it is now understoodthat most such ‘primitive’ societies have been involved with
commoditization and external trade for hundreds, and inmany cases thousands, of years, yet they persist today inrecognizably distinct form.
It is apparent that considerations of scale or degree are
relevant criteria in trying to distinguish between various

233IWC/44/SEST5World, Chambers English, and the Concise Oxford
dictionaries refers variously to catching, packing andselling fish, a place for catching fish, the right to catch
fish, the art or practice of catching fish, etc. No reference
is made to fisheries based upon seal, whale or clams
for example.
The term ‘subsistence’ enjoys as many varied andlimited definitions as do words like ‘dolphin’ and‘fishery’ in English-language dictionaries.
2. The term culture is used in the generally accepted
anthropological sense to mean the distinctively humanactivity of systemically making, organizing, valuing andcommunicating changing thoughts, artifacts, behaviors
and symbols.
3. A recent critical review of the scientific literature on
hunter-gather societies concluded that “many of thesegroups were involved in interethnic and international
trade long before 16th-century European expansion”
and that Westerners have consistently failed tounderstand that these societies have been, often for long
periods of time, ‘commercial foragers’ (Headland andReid:51; see also Wilmsen 1989).
In regard to such hunting-fishing-gathering peoples’
economic relations, another recent review states: “theappearance of cash and commoditization are usuallyseen as the first manifestation of modernity and as
evidence of the impact of market economies amongpeople previously untouched by them... [however]...
such impacts go back five thousand years or more insome cases and certainly encompass virtually all
foragers today” (Peterson 1991: lff).

Dahl, J. 1989b. The Integrative and Cultural Role of Hunting
and Subsistence in Greenland. Etudes Inuit
Studies 13(l): 23-42
Feldman, K.D. 1986. Subsistence Beluga Hunting in
Alaska: A View from Eschscholtz Bay (1). Pp.
153-171 in S.J. Langdon (editor) Contemporary
Alaskan Native Economies. University Pressof America, Lanham & London
Fienup-Riordan, A. 1986. Traditional Subsistence Activities
and Systems of Exchange among the Nelson
Island Yup’ik. Pp.173-183 in S.J. Langdon(editor) Contemporary Alaskan Native
Economies. University Press of America,
Lanham and London
Headland, T.N. and L.A. Reid 1989. Hunter-Gatherers andtheir Neighbors from Prehistory to the Present.
Current Anthropology 30(l): 43-66
Hickel, W.J. 1991. Subsistence Priority Must Be Based on
Lifestyle. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner,
September 22, 1991
IWC 1981. Report of the Special Working Group of theTechnical Committee Concerning Management
Principles and Development of Guidelines
about Whaling for Subsistence by Aborigines.
IWC Doc. IWC/33/14, Cambridge
Josefsen, E. 1990. Cutter Hunting of Minke Whale in
Qaqortoq (Greenland): case study. IWC Doc.
TC/42/SEST5. Cambridge
Kruse, J.A. 1986. Subsistence and the North Slope Inupiat:
The Effects of Energy Development. Pp. 121152 in S.J. Langdon (editor) Contemporary
Alaskan Native Economies. University Pressof America, Lanham and London
Kruse, J.A. 1991. Alaska Inupiat Subsistence and Wage
Employment Patterns: Understanding
Individual Choice. Human Organization 50(4):317-326
Langdon, S.J. 1984. Alaska Native Subsistence: Current
Regulatory Regimes and Issues. Alaska Native
Review Commission Volume XIX, Anchorage
Langdon, S.J. 1991a. The Integration of Cash andSubsistence in Southwest Alaskan Yup’ik
Eskimo Communities. Senri EthnologicalStudies 30: 269-291
Langdon, S.J. 1991b. Tlingit and Haida Indian harvest, Useand Trade of Herring Roe in Kelp in Southeast
Alaska. Unpublished report, May 1991,
Anchorage
Lonner, T.D. 1986. Subsistence as an Economic System in
Alaska: Theoretical Observations andManagement Implications. pp.15-28 in S.J.
Langdon (editor) Contemporary Alaskan
Native Economies. University Press ofAmerica, Lanham and London
Oxford Dictionary, Concise. 1990. Oxford

REFERENCES CITED
Caldwell, W.E. 1991. Implementation of the State
Subsistence Priority Law after McDowell: A
Profound Mess. Alaska Legal Services Report,
Fairbanks, October 1, 1991
Campbell, M. 1991. Proposed State Legislation Defines
What Subsistence Is, Where it Happens, Who
Participates. Arctic Issues Digest, October
1991: 8-11
Caulfield, R.A. 1991a. Qeqertarsuarmi arfanniarneq:
Greenlandic Inuit Whaling in Qeqertarsuaq
Kommune, West Greenland. IWC Doc. TC/43/
AS4, Cambridge
Caulfield, R.A. 1991b. Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling inGreenland’s Mixed Economy: The Case of
Qeqertarsuaq Municipality in West Greenland.
Paper presented at International Conference on
Common Property Resources, September 2527, 1991, Winnipeg
Chambers English Dictionary, 1988. Cambridge
Dahl, J. 1989a. Hunting and Subsistence in Greenland in
the Light of Socio-Economic Relations. IWC/
41/22, Section 2. Cambridge

234

A Critical Evaluation of the Relationship between Cash Economies and Subsistence Activities
Petersen, R. 1989. Traditional and Present Distribution
Channels in Subsistence Hunting in Greenland.
IWC/41/22, Section 3. Cambridge
Peterson, N. 1991. Introduction: Cash, Commoditisation
and Changing Foragers. Senri EthnologicalStudies 30: 1-16
Usher, P.J. 1981. Sustenance or Recreation? The Future of
Native Wildlife Harvesting in Northern Canada.
Pp.56-71 in M.M.R. Freeman (editor),
Proceedings of the First International
Symposium on Renewable Resources and theEconomy of the North. Association of Canadian
Universities for Northern Studies and Canada
Man and the Biosphere Programme, Ottawa
Veltre, D.W. and M.J. Veltre 1983. Resource Utilizationin Atka, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Alaska
Department of Fish and GaMe, Division ofSubsistence, Technical Paper No. 88

Webster’s New World Dictionary, 1988. New York, N.Y
Wilmsen, E.N. 1989. Land Filled with Flies: A Political
Economy of the Kalahari. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago
Wolfe, R.J. 1983. Understanding Resource Uses in Alaskan
Socioeconomic Systems. pp. 248-274 in R.J.
Wolfe and L.J. Ellanna (editors) Resource Useand Socioeconomic Systems: Case Studies ofFishing and Hunting in Alaskan Communities.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divisionof Subsistence Technical Paper No. 61
Wolfe, R.J. 1986. The Economic Efficiency of Food
Production in a Western Alaska Eskimo
Population. pp.101-120 in S.J. Langdon (editor)
Contemporary Alaskan Native Economies.
Univ. Press of America, Lanham and London
Worl, R. The North Slope Inupiat Whaling Complex. Senri
Ethnological Studies 4: 305-320

235

IWC/44/SEST5

236

IWC/44/SEST6

THE REPORT OF THE SYMPOSIUM ON UTILIZATION OF MARINE
LIVING RESOURCES FOR SUBSISTENCE
VOLUME II
SIMILARITIES AND DIVERSITY IN COASTAL WHALINGOPERATIONS:A COMPARISON OF SMALL-SCALE WHALING ACTIVITIES IN
GREENLAND, ICELAND, JAPAN AND NORWAY
AN INTERNATIONAL STUDY GROUP FOR SMALL-TYPE WHALINGMARCH, 1992
The attached report contains important information on various aspects of the small-type whaling.
The Government of Japan, therefore, submits this report as one of its documents to the IWC
Working Group to consider various aspects of the small-type whaling.

1992

SIMILARITIES AND DIVERSITY IN COASTAL WHALINGOPERATIONS:A Comparison of Small-Scale Whaling Activities inGreenland, Iceland, Japan and Norway
by
An International Study Group for Small-Type Whaling
Participants
Chairman: Brian Moeran (UK)
Tomoya Akimichi (Japan)
Arne Kalland (Norway)
Richard Caulfield (USA)Gisli PÂlsson (Iceland)
Nancy Doubleday (Canada)
Halldor Stefansson (Iceland)
Milton Freeman (Canada)
Junichi Takahashi (Japan)
Taiji, Jan. 20-23, 1992

OVERVIEW

Achieving the widely-recognised goal of sustainable
development requires broadening our understanding of
human/environment relations, on the one hand, and greater
sensitivity toward the importance of marine living resourcesin the livelihoods of diverse coastal communities aroundthe world, on the other. This Report is based on just suchdiscussions by an International Study Group which met inorder to share research results relating to small-type or
coastal whaling in a number of different countries aroundthe world, and to discuss how sustainable development inthese whaling activities might best be achieved1.

There is a growing awareness throughout the world thatsustainable development strategies must be pursued, if
demands for both pressing human needs and theconservation of nature and natural resources are to beaddressed and in some way met. In this context, the conceptof sustainable development means maintaining, improving
or restoring “the quality of human life while living within
the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems” (IUCN,
UNEP, and WWF 1991: 4).
Paralleling this growing awareness of the need forsustainability is recognition of the importance of humanrights doctrines in international law, including internationalcovenants regarding rights to use natural wealth andresources (Part 1, Article 1, International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). These doctrines
apply both to indigenous or aboriginal peoples — who arerecognised as having inherent rights to natural resources,
including subsistence rights — and to non-aboriginal
peoples whose livelihoods are dependent upon sustainable
use of local resources.

INTRODUCTION
Under the International Convention for the Regulationof Whaling (ICRW) recognises three categories of whaling:whaling for purposes of commerce; aboriginal subsistence
whaling2; and whaling for purposes of scientific research.
The IWC is empowered by contracting parties to set harvest
quotas for stocks of certain species of whale which are theobject of either commercial or aboriginal subsistence
whaling operations. For the purposes of regulation, the two237

IWC/44/SEST6

categories of commercial whaling and aboriginalsubsistence whaling are separate and distinct. The term‘commercial whaling’ has never been defined by the IWC.
However, in its Schedule the IWC has defined a type of
whaling which it calls ‘small-type whaling’ (STW) as:“... catching operations using powered vessels withmounted harpoon guns hunting exclusively forminke, bottlenose, beaked, pilot or killer whales”3(Definitions Section C [General], IWC Schedule).
At the same time, for regulatory purposes this type of
whaling is completely subsumed under ‘commercial
whaling’ which thus acts as a blanket category grouping
STW with large-scale pelagic (i.e. industrial) whaling
operations, even though the two differ in a number ofimportant ways.
In contrast to commercial whaling, aboriginalsubsistence whaling (ASW) is defined by the IWC as:“... whaling for purposes of local aboriginal
consumption carried out by or on behalf ofaboriginal, indigenous or native peoples who sharestrong community, familial, social and cultural ties
related to a continuing traditional dependence on
whaling and on the use of whales” (IWC 1981: 3).
IWC approval of ASW is based upon long-standing
recognition in international law of indigenous peoples,inherent rights to resources based upon property rights andhistoric patterns of land/sea use and occupancy (IWGIA
1991; Doubleday 1992).
This Report is based on an International Study Group’s
evaluation of a number of case studies of whaling activities(other than for research) in Iceland, Japan and Norway, sothat participants might arrive at a greater understanding of
the multifaceted role of STW as one mode of production in
local societies. The Report thus attempts to address inparticular:
The problem of a sustainable development strategy
for non-aboriginal peoples conducting Small-Type
Whaling and involved in what may be termed
Simple Commodity Production.
Firstly, let us look at STW. Discussion and comparisonof case studies by the International Study Group haverevealed that many coastal whaling communities haveimportant characteristics in common. For example, thesecommunities typically:• are small and relatively remote;• rely on a wide range of marine resources for
subsistence;• generally have few land-based resources available;
and• have a broad pattern of marine resource harvesting.
Similarly, production units (typically households) andwhaling practices in these coastal communities also sharemany common characteristics. Typically, these include:• vessels used in coastal whaling are relatively
small, and generally are owned and operated bysmall crews recruited on family or personalconnections;• crew members involved in coastal whaling
typically participate in a share system, which may
include significant amounts of cash, but which also
includes extensive non-cash distribution of edible
whale products:• whale meat is an important local source ofnutrition and may also be important in local cultural
practices and beliefs; and• whaling typically contributes to a strong senseof community identity and distinctive cultural traits
that may themselves distinguish coastal
communities from the larger national cultures inwhich they are situated.
During the symposium, STW practices in Iceland, Japan
and Norway were also compared with ASW practices inGreenland. Under IWC provisions, Greenlanders use fishingvessels to catch minke and fin whales (and until recent quota
restrictions, humpback whales), and collective whaling
techniques to catch minke whales. Greenlandic whaling isclearly recognised by the IWC as aboriginal subsistence
whaling. However, the International Study Group found it
useful to compare STW with fishing vessel whaling forminke whalers in Greenland because:(1) coastal whaling is clearly permitted as ASW in
Greenland: and(2) vessel whaling for minke whales in Greenland
shares certain features with STW in othercommunities.
As can be seen in the following Report, it became clear
from the International Study Group’s discussions that:(1) like aboriginal peoples whaling under ASW,
non-aboriginal people involved in STW may also
share strong communal, familial, social and cultural
ties related to a traditional dependence on whaling
and the use of whales (IWC 1981: 3).
Yet(2) unlike ASW, where indigenous rights toresources are clearly recognised in internationallaw, STW practices are treated by the IWC as
simply an undifferentiated form of commercial
whaling.
The evidence presented in the symposium reveals that:
Small-Type Whaling in Iceland, Japan and Norway
is qualitatively different from both high-seascommercial pelagic whaling and from aboriginalsubsistence whaling.
Secondly, let us turn to the issue of simple commodity
production. All production throughout the world, includingthat of hunters and gatherers, has been involved in, andaffected by, the world capitalist economy for many years4.
However, in evaluating STW practices, the International
Study Group concluded that in economic terms this formof whaling could, and should, be categorised as what social
scientists term simple commodity production — in contrast
to a kin-based mode of production in pre-capitalist societies

238

Similaries and Diversity in Coastal Whaling Operations:
A Comparison of Small-scale Whaling Activities in Greenland, Iceland, Japan and Norway(e.g. most indigenous societies), and to a capitalist modeof production in highly industrialised societies (e.g. highseas pelagic whaling). By ‘simple commodity production’,
we mean that mode of production which is:“... based on relatively small-scale, simple
technology; work groups organized around kinship,friendship, or temporary collegiality but with little
difference between owners and laborers;
widespread sharing of costs, risks, benefits, andwindfalls; and a variable subsistence/market
allocation of production” (McCay 1981: 2-3).
Simple commodity production is widely recognised in
the social science literature as encompassing artisanalproduction, particularly in fisheries. This is defined as:“... ownerships of means of production; profits andlosses assumed by the artisan; simple and practicaltechnology; decentralized coastal fishing; reduced
operation costs; high production in relation to levels
of investment; good-quality fish landed,
contributing especially to food self-sufficiency; andfinally... the creation of numerous jobs for womenas well as for men” (Bacle and Cecil 1989: 13).
Both simple commodity production and artisanalproduction are recognised as constituting a “non-industrial
mode of life in which producers are directly andknowledgably related to production” (World Bank 1980).
In view of these criteria, and given the data presented at the
symposium, it is the considered judgement and conclusionof symposium participants who form the International Study
Group that:
In recognition of the need for sustainable and equitable development of coastal communities, a separate management category for ‘small Type Whaling’should forthwith be recognized by the IWC.

seasons are regulated, and the principal target
species is the minke whale. Home ports are usuallysmall and in remote communities, and distances
travelled from shore are short.
Vessels vary in length from 20’ to 122’, the largest being
those Norwegian vessels which may travel a considerable
distance from home and stay at sea for up to three weeks5.
Other vessels, however, rarely — if ever — stay at sea for
more than two days, and generally sail no more than 30
miles from shore. While Greenlandic boats operate out of
their local communities, Icelandic, Norwegian and Japaneseboats return to a fixed number of (authorised) landing sites.
It is at these sites that whales are generally flensed andprocessed, although Norwegian vessels flense on board, andboats working in waters off Hokkaido, Japan, may also
conduct limited on-board flensing. None of the vessels isused only for minke whaling, since in Greenland, Iceland
and Norway they are also used during different seasons toharvest seals, fish and shrimps, whilst in Japan vessels are
specialised whaling boats designed to hunt various speciesof whale (principally minke, but also Baird’s beaked andpilot whales). Cannon size on all boats ranges between 50
and 60 mm and some Norwegian boats have a second
cannon mounted in the stern. Both Greenlandic andJapanese vessels may use skiffs to assist in different aspectsof whale hunting.
The whales themselves are part of a community
resource base, and generally comprise a significant
component of a local multispecies fishery, providing a majorpart of the local food base. In each of the fisheries concerned,
whales are generally available for a limited period of timeeach year. In the higher-latitude fisheries of Greenland,
Iceland and Norway, whaling seasons are determinedprimarily by the fact that minke whales frequent inshore
waters for relatively short periods of time. Consequently,
Greenlandic and Icelandic whalers tend to take whales
opportunistically during the course of fishing or shrimping
operations. In the case of Norway, the season is also
determined to an extent by the state of other fisheries,
whether quotas in those fisheries have been filled, and theavailability of licences. In Japan, however, the whaling
season extends over several months, during which time
STW boats travel to different areas to hunt different speciesof whale, and are used exclusively for this purpose.
2. Personnel Organisation
In general, vessels engaged in STW are owneroperated. Crews, flensers and secondary processors
are local people whose recruitment is based
primarily on family and personal connections.
In all case except one6, owners operate one vessel each
and usually work on board together with from one to sevenother crew members. In Japan most boats are family owned
and crew membership tends to be based more on personalconnections that link owner and crew member. In
Greenland, Iceland and Norway, kinship connections
between owners and crew members predominate.

COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF SMALLTYPE WHALING
Drawing upon the IWC’s definition of small-typewhaling, the International Study Group compared STW
activities in Iceland, Japan and Norway and found that they
exhibit a cluster of common characteristics which clearly
distinguish them from commercial (industrial) whaling. In
the following discussion, these activities are compared andcontrasted with certain forms of coastal whaling inGreenland that are clearly recognised as ASW. The
following major categories were used in the Group’s
analysis:(1) technology and resources,(2) personnel organisation,(3) whale product distribution patterns,(4) local cultural practices, and(5) community identity.
1. Technology and Resources
In general, STW is conducted using small,multipurpose, powered boats, armed with aharpoon gun generally located in the bow. Hunting

239

IWC/44/SEST6

Unlike large-scale industrial whaling in which job
specialisation is the norm, crews in the small-scale
operations under study do not usually specialise in thevarious tasks involved in the hunting and processing ofwhales. As in all whaling operations, the position of gunneris comparatively specialised, given the importance of thistask to the success of the hunt. But gunners are also expected
to share other tasks with their fellow crew. This lack of
specialisation in no way indicates a lack of professionalism;
rather, it is the inevitable consequence of having a small
crew with a large number of tasks to perform.
When a whale is caught, it is usually brought to alanding site for flensing and processing. Winching thecarcass ashore and flensing are generally performed by crew
members with the assistance of other family members. In
Japan there is a specialised flensing team of two or threepeople who are assisted by a number of women and elderlymen (retired whalers). In all countries practicing STW and
ASW, local people and children will gather to watch theflensing, and this activity thus serves as a focus forcommunity participation and identity. In Norway, flensing
is conducted on board and large pieces (ca. 100 kg) of meat
are then delivered ashore for further processing. Bothlanding sites and processing plants in all countries
concerned are almost invariable small-scale, located inremote areas, and make use exclusively of local community
labour. Importantly, much of this labour is provided by
women.
3. Distribution Patterns
In the forms of STW and ASW considered in thisreport, whale products are distributed through cash
and non-cash channels at both local and regional
levels. Such distribution patterns tend to reinforce
family and other community ties and sustain adistinctive food culture which helps to promote a
sense of community or local identity in the areas inwhich these whaling forms are practiced. The useof cash, as a generalized currency, ensures theefficient and equitable distribution of valued foods
throughout these modern cash-based societies.
In general, products deriving from the harvesting ofwhales by STW and Greenlandic ASW vessels have been
distributed at the local, regional, and national levels. The
exact distribution of whale products at the present time is
not known for any of the countries concerned. In the caseof Iceland, Japan and Norway, traditional distribution
patterns became progressively distorted from the early
1980s as declining catch quotas both for STW and forindustrial whaling led to increased demand for fewer
products (e.g. Takahashi 1991). In Greenland, meanwhile,the fall in the supply of whale products has seen whaling
communities holding on to more of what they have, and as
a result less now goes into wide circulation.
As both STW and ASW occur within the context ofmodern cash economies, the sale of whale products occurs ineach of the countries discussed here. Marketing is conducted

through local fishermen’s — or in the case of southern
Norway, STW — cooperatives or regional associations.
Non-cash forms of distribution are practiced in all countries,
and involve the handing out of edible whale products to
those involved in the hunting and processing of whales.
In Iceland and Norway, crew members are paid
according to a share system based on profits deriving fromcatches of whales and other marine resources, and theprincipal from of payment is cash. In Greenland, cash may
be used, but there is always an element of payment in kind,and often payment is exclusively in kind. In Japan, payment
is made in the form of wages, bonuses based on catches,
and a distribution of whale products. Flensing teams in all
countries are generally paid in wages, although in Japan a
combination of wages and whale products is used.
Exceptions are close family members involved in flensing
in Japan, and flensers who are not crew members inGreenland. Both these groups of people are paid in kind
only. The quantities of products distributed in this mannerare hard to ascertain, but it is certain that non-cash
distribution frequently involves an extremely highpercentage of households in and around communities inwhich STW and ASW are practiced.
As we have seen, initially whale products are distributed
to crew members and to those involved in the flensing andprocessing of each whale. These individuals then divide up
parts of their shares among relatives, friends and neighbours
who may in turn reciprocate with other, non-whaling,
products. In all countries, therefore, STW and ASW giverise to informal barter systems which may — in the case of
Norway, for example — be ‘egalitarian’ and somewhat
unstructured, or — in that of Japan — be directed by theowner of a vessel who wishes to build up his social standing
within the community. In both systems of barter generated
by such exchanges of whale products, there is an extensive
involvement of local people who derive a further sense ofcommunity identity from such distribution patterns7.
4. Local Cultural Practices
Since whales are locally available in accessible
coastal waters, they have come to assume
importance in the economies, cultural practices andbeliefs of those maritime communities specialisingin their capture and utilisation. Significant local
cultural practices include diet as well as rituals,
ceremonies, and beliefs connected with the handing
down of traditional knowledge concerned withwhales and whaling.
One feature in particular illustrates the cultural
importance of whales to the societies under discussion. Dueto the large amount of food, and hence security, a whale
carcass provides to these small and often isolated, remotecommunities, edible whale products serve as a seasonally
important food staple. In more recent times, the availabilityof whale meat has extended beyond the hunting season (dueto refrigeration, etc.), but this appears not to have diminishedits customary use and association with particular seasonal

240

Similaries and Diversity in Coastal Whaling Operations:
A Comparison of Small-scale Whaling Activities in Greenland, Iceland, Japan and Norway

or ceremonial activities. Thus in some parts of Iceland whale
meat is used to celebrate the arrival of spring, while in Japan
meat or blubber is used at New Year celebrations. Whalemeat in Greenland and Norway is associated with theimportance of eating locally produced, fresh, ‘wild’ meat8,
while the specialised cuisine found in Japanese STW
communities is heavily dependent upon fresh (i.e. unfrozen)
whale meat. Japanese people classify whales as fish in theirfolk classification system, though they know them to be
mammals9. Thus the inhabitants of whaling towns such as
Ayukawa can eat whale meat at funeral ceremonies eventhough the eating of mammals is prohibited at such times10.
Rituals associated with whaling occur both on board boats
and variously on shore, and include annual boat-purification
rites, together with taboos and rituals associated with ensuring
good luck and turning away bad luck. Prayer and otherreligious practices associated with whaling occur in all thesocieties concerned. These are primarily aimed at ensuring
the safety of crews, but there are other forms. In Japan, forexample, religious observances are directed to the peacefulrepose of the souls of whales which have been caught. In
Iceland, meanwhile, a stranded whale is referred to as ‘a giftfrom God’, and minke whales are considered ‘good whales’
because they bring herring inshore. Across the Arctic region
from Chukotka to Greenland, local foods, including whale,
form the basis for Inuit sharing networks and constitute an
integral part of household and community celebrations.
Inhabitants of remote, isolated communities need detailed
knowledge of environmental conditions and the behaviourof local food animals in order to survive. This traditional
knowledge is passed down from generation to generation in
informal learning situations, often involving direct working
experience. This knowledge may take years to acquire, andis continually in the process of being refined sinceenvironmental change is both inevitable and ongoing. At thesame time, precisely because such knowledge is extremely
specialised, it contributes to an overall sense of local identity
in those communities in which whaling is practiced.
5. Community Identity
The combination of technology and resources,
personnel organisation, distribution patterns andlocal cultural practices based on whales andwhaling contributes towards the establishment andmaintenance of community identity.
Individuals in all societies assume a variety of identities
which are the product of such factors as circumstances ofbirth, social networks, place of residence, and occupation.
In the case of remote communities, we tend to find thatpeople are born and brought up together and live and work
together all their lives. This creates a very strong sense ofcommunity identity which is usually further marked bycertain linguistic and cultural features peculiar to such
communities. At the same time, there is frequently a senseof distinctive identity based on occupation. Thus it iscommon in whaling communities for whalers to seethemselves as a prestigeous sub-group among fishermen

and quite distinct from the other hunters and farmers withwhom they reside.
Such community and/or occupational identity isreinforced by the development of non-commercial barteringsystems involving whale meat, by distinctive local foodcultures, and by rituals and beliefs connected with whaling.
The creation of such an identity often gives rise to what
may be called a local integrated whaling culture11, or marine
resource-based society, which under certain circumstances
may then itself contribute to a sense of national sentimentand identity12.

SMALL-TYPE WHALING FORSUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE
DEVELOPMENT: THE NEED FOR
REDEFINITION
This analysis of coastal whaling operations makes it clearthat STW is qualitatively different from both aboriginalsubsistence whaling and commercial whaling. Until
recently, this distinction was of little importance in the IWC
because of the blanket acceptance of commercial whaling
quotas. However, with the current moratorium on allcommercial whaling, refinement and modification of IWC
categories are clearly necessary as a means of providing
for sustainable and equitable use of marine resources bycoastal communities.
Based on the preceding analysis of characteristics
common to STW and other forms of whaling, clustersof characteristics can be used to define the new categoryof STW within the IWC management regimen. Buildingon the IWC’s existing definition of STW, theInternational Study Group concluded that STW activities
in Iceland, Japan, and Norway share the following
characteristics:• the communities involved are small andremote13;• they have few land-based resources and are thus
dependent on the utilisation of marine resources;• hunts are conducted using relatively small
vessels, are short in duration, and are confined tocoastal waters;• the vessels are generally owner-operated, andare manned by small crews recruited on the strengthof family or personal connections;• in addition to catching whales, crew members
normally also participate in the flensing; while
payment to crew and flensers is usually based on ashare system, cash forms an important part ofexchange transactions;• there is also an extensive non-cash distributionof edible whale products in these whaling
communities and this serves important social,
cultural, economic and dietary needs;• in such communities whale meat is usually an
important source of nutrition and food, and it may
also be used in important rituals;241IWC/44/SEST6• all communities are characterised, too, by otherlocal religious, ritual and cultural practices andbeliefs, involving local history, epics, myths, folk
tales, song, music, dance and other art forms
emphasising whales and/or whaling. These in turnhelp foster a strong sense of community identityand distinctive local culture which may set such
communities apart from the broader national
cultures in which they are found.
These characteristics reinforce the argument that STW
is, indeed, a form of simple commodity or artisanalproduction. By focusing on differing economic strategies
relating to the use and exchange of whale products(production for use vis-a-vis production for exchange), andon levels of organisation (company vis-a-vis household,together with property right distinctions in the case ofaboriginal subsistence whaling), we can draw up a diagram
illustrating three different types of production: aboriginalsubsistence, simple commodity and commercial.
In the judgement of the International Study Group,
the current IWC taxonomy fails to differentiate clearly
between identifiable characteristics — such as thoserelating to technology (including boat ownership and creworganization), culture, economy and community
dependence as listed above — which distinguish STWfrom other types of commercial whaling, on the one hand,and from aboriginal subsistence whaling, on the other. In
the interest of equity, and to further the objective of
supporting sustainable development, we believe that it isillogical to ignore the distinctive characteristics of STW.
Given these conclusions, the Internal Study Group
recommends that:
The IWC recognise Small-Type Whaling as a
distinctive and operationally useful category for the
purpose of regulating coastal whaling in asustainable and equitable manner.

Use

Domestic Mode
Aboriginal Subsistence

Capitalism
Capitalism
Commercial economy
Commercial
MarketEconomy
MarketExchange

Company

Small type
Small-type
Simple commodity
SimpleArtisanalCommodity
Artisanal

Household

CONCLUSIONTOWARDS A NEW APPROACH TO
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
In consideration of on-going deliberations at the IWC
of ways to optimise whale stock management, theInternational Study Group decided to broaden its discussion
to embrace wider issues regarding the exploitation,conservation and management of living marine resourcesin those coastal communities in which STW is practiced.
As revealed in this comparative study of coastal whaling
communities, STW is an important component of smallscale diversified local economies dependent upon theutilisation of a variety of marine resources. It is also an
important element in the sustainability of these communities
in social, cultural and environmental terms. By‘sustainability’ we mean improving, maintaining or
restoring “the quality of human life while living within the
carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems” (IUCN, UNEP,
and WWF 1991, p4).
It is the relationship between the people inhabiting acommunity and the environment which supports that
community that concerns us here. Current international
initiatives14 regarding sustainable development oblige us
all to re-evaluate previous and present approaches to the
exploitation, conservation and management of living
resources, including those of the oceans and coastal areas.
The object of such a re-evaluation should be to strengthen
existing regimes and to investigate the formation of
appropriate new regimes in order to ensure sustainableutilisation of these marine resources, both now and in the
future. At the same time, we should be aware of Part 1,
Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights which provides inter alia that:“All peoples may, for their own ends, freely disposeof their natural wealth and resources without
prejudice to any obligations arising out ofinternational economic co-operation based on theprinciple of mutual benefit, and international law.
In no case may a people be deprived of their meansof subsistence.”
There is wide-spread recognition, firstly, that theplanning and management of regimes for conservation anddevelopment of living resources must provide for theeffective participation of local communities (IWC 1981)15;
and secondly, that the “rights to use marine resources need
to be allocated clearly, and particular weight given to theinterests of local communities” (IUCN, UNEP, and WWF
1991: 16). Accordingly, the International Study Groupagreed that the existing regimes for management of thosemarine resources — such as whales — that are ofdemonstrable importance to coastal communities, should
be re-examined according to the following criteria:(1) The sustainable utilisation of biologicalresources should be based upon the best available
scientific and local advice;(2) Appropriate measures should be adopted to242

Similaries and Diversity in Coastal Whaling Operations:
A Comparison of Small-scale Whaling Activities in Greenland, Iceland, Japan and Norway
general rule. However, in the International Study Group’s opinion, Abashiri
ensure the protection of marine and coastal
whalers, flensers, distributors and retailers form an occupational community
environments:
which is both small and remote.
14. For example, Caring for the Earth, the World Commission on(3) The direct participation of local communities
Environment and Development (The Brundtland Commission), and theshould be ensured in the planning andongoing work of the United Nations’ Declaration on the Right toDevelopment.
implementation of resource management regimes;
15. cf. the rights of self-determination under the Covenant on Economic,
andSocial and Cultural Rights which says that: “All peoples have the right ofself-determination. By virtue of that right they may freely determine their(4) Management objectives should ensure thatpolitical status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
benefits from coastal marine resource utilisation go
development” (quoted in Doubleday 1992).

primarily to local communities.
In the opinion of the International Study Group, themanagement of whale resources according to such criteria
would address recent criticisms that the IWC does not reflectcurrent enlightened thinking on resource management. It
is imperative and urgent that the IWC address and resolve
the issue of equitability and sustainability in resource
management, since if it fails to do so, its critics will almost
certainly seek alternative means of satisfying thosereasonable human needs that present IWC practice is unable
to accommodate.
It this situation, it is our reasoned belief that a separate
category of whaling, to be known as ‘Small-Type Whaling’,should be established. Such an additional category would
fall squarely within the parameters for the overallmanagement of marine resources outlined above, as well
as respect the reasonable needs of those involved in coastal
whaling operations in Iceland, Japan and Norway.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akimichi, Tomoya et al. 1988: Small-Type Coastal Whalingin Japan: Report of an International Workshop.
IWC/40/23
Bacle, Jean and Cecil, Robert 1989: Artisanal Fisheries in
Sub-Saharan Africa: Survey and Research.
Canadian International Development Agency,
November 1989
Brydon 1990: Icelandic Nationalism and the Whaling Issue,
North Atlantic Studies 2 (1-2): 185-191
Cassell, Mark 1988: Farmers of the Northern Ice: Relationsof Production in the Traditional North Alaskan
Inupiat Whale Hunt. Research in Economic
Anthropology 10: 89-116
Caulfield, Richard 1991: Qeqertarsuarmi arfanniarneq:
Greenlandic Inuit Whaling in Qeqertarsuaq
Kommune, West Greenland. Report presented
to the International Whaling Commission
Technical Commitee. Number TC/43/AS4
Donovan, Greg (ed.) 1982: Aboriginal/Subsistence
Whaling. Cambridge: International Whaling
Commission. Special Issue 4
Doubleday, Nancy 1992: Indigenous Subsistence Whalingin Canada: Past, Present and Future. Paper
presented at the symposium on Utilization ofMarine Living Resources for Subsistence, Taiji,
Japan, January 21-23, 1992
Fall, J.A. 1990: The Division of Subsistence of the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game: An Overview
of Its Research Program and Findings: 19801990. Arctic Anthropology 27 (2): 68-92
Greenland Home Rule Government 1989: Greenland
Subsistence Hunting. Report submitted to IWC
Technical Committee, San Diego
Headland, T.N. & Reid, L.A. 1985: Hunter Gatherers andtheir Neighbors from Prehistory to the Present.
Current Anthropology 30 (1): 43-66
International Study Group 1991: Cultural Perspectives ofNorwegian Small-Type Whaling. International
Study Group on Norwegian Small-Type
Whaling. In press. Tromsø: Fishery College of
NorwayIUCN, UNEP, and WWF 1991: Caring for the Earth: A
Strategy for Sustainable Living. The World
Conservation Union, the United Nations

End notes
1. The International Study Group met in Taiji, Japan, from January 21-23,
1992, for a symposium on the ‘Utilisation of Marine Living Resources for
Subsistence’. Participants, under the chairmanship of Professor Brian Moeran(University of London), were social scientists with a wide range of knowledge
and expertise about the conservation and utilisation of marine mammals,
and who shared an interest in developing new and more constructive
paradigms for sustainable resource management and use. During the
symposium, participants presented papers describing their own research
regarding utilisation of marine resources, and undertook a process ofcomparing case studies of small-type whaling in three countries — Iceland,
Japan and Norway — both with one another and with one kind of aboriginalsubsistence whaling (vessel fishing for minke whalers) in Greenland (seebelow).
Members of the International Study Group would like to take thisopportunity to thank Shigeko Misaki (coordinator) and Simon Ward(rapporteur) for their untiring cooperation and support during the symposium.
We are also very grateful to Greg Donovan, Scientific Editor of theInternational Whaling Commission, for his advice.
2. It should be noted here that current understanding of ‘subsistence’, aswidely used in the scientific literature and in U.S. resource management
regimes, does not necessarily restrict this activity to aboriginal people (e.g.
Wolfe and Ellana 1983; Fall 1990; Palsson 1991).
3. It should be noted that this definition includes some species (e.g.
bottlenose, beaked and pilot whales) not recognised as under the purview of
the IWC, and that the status of such species under the Convention is disputed.
4. E.g. Headland and Reid 1985: 51; Peterson 1991: 1-7
5. When vessels are at sea for such long periods, whaling is not conducted
continuously. The voyage is prolonged because of adverse weather
conditions, and storms often force the suspension of whaling for a week ormore at a time.
6. This exception is in the highly specialised Japanese beaked whale fishery,
which developed in one restricted area to supply a regional demand for a
special whale meat product (Akimichi et al. 1988: 86-91)
7. cf. Akimichi et al. 1988, pp 41-51; Caulfield 1991 (IWC/TC/43/AS4,p6); Josefsen 1990 (IWC/TC/42/SEST5)
8. As opposed to ‘domesticated’ meats produced elsewhere.
9. cf. Akimichi et al. 1988: 66.
10. cf. Akimichi et al. 1988: 73
11. Kalland and Moeran 1990, Chapter 7
12. E.g. Brydon 1990; Caulfield 1991: 114
13. It may be argued that, in Japan, Abashiri forms an exception to this243IWC/44/SEST6

Environment Programme and World Wide
Fund for Nature. Gland, Switzerland
IWC 1981: Report of the Special Working Group of theTechnical Committee Concerning Management
Principles and Development of Guidelines
about Whaling for Subsistence by Aborigines.
IWC/33/14, Cambridge
IWC 1990: Distinguishing between Japanese STCW and
LTCW in Relation to Coastal Whale-Fishery
Management. Prepared by Government ofJapan. TC/42/SEST3
IWGIA 1991: Arctic Environment: Indigenous Perspectives. IWGIA Document 69. International
Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.
Copenhagen, August 1991
Josefsen, E, 1990: Cutter Hunting of Minke Whale in
Qaqortoq (Greenland). Paper submitted to theInternational Whaling Commission TechnicalCommittee. Report Number TC/42/SEST 5
Kalland, Arne & Moeran, Brian 1990: Endangered Culture:
Cultural Perspectives on Japanese Whaling.
Copenhagen: NIAS, Preprints No. 2
McCay, Bonnie M. 1981: Development Issues in Fisheries
as Agrarian Systems. Culture and Agriculture
11: 2-3Pålsson, Gisli 1991: Coastal Economies, Cultural Accounts:
Human Ecology and Icelandic Discourse.
Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press
Peterson, N. 1991: Introduction: Cash Commoditisation andChanging Foragers. Senri Ethnological Studies
30: 1-16
Takahashi, Junichi 1991: Socio-Economic Implications of
the International Whaling Ban on a Nationally
Regulated Small-Scale Localized Whale
Fishery: A Case Study of Baird’s Beaked Whale
Fishery in Japan. Resource Management andOptimization 8 (3-4): 101-108
WCED 1987: Our Common Future. The World Commission
on Environment and Development. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Wolfe, R.J. and Ellanna, L.J. (eds.) 1983: Resource Useand Socio-Economic Systems: Case Studies ofFishing and Hunting in Alaskan Communities.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divisionof Subsistence. Technical Paper Series No. 61
World Bank 1980: Rethinking Artisanal Fisheries
Development: Western concepts, Asianexperiences. Prepared by Donald K. Emerson.
Staff Working Paper No. 423, October 1980
APPENDIX I

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AT THE
INTERNATIONAL STUDY GROUP FOR
SMALL-TYPE WHALING
met at Taiji, Japan, 21-23 January, 1992
Name:
Tomoya Akimichi

Affliate:
Associate Professor, National
Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, Japan
Richard Caulfield
Department of Rural Development,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
U.S.A.
Nancy Doubleday
Department of Biology, Queen’s
University, Kingston, Ontario
CanadaMilton Freeman
Professor, Dept. of Anthropology,
University of Alberta, Edmonton,
CanadaHisashi Hamaguchi Municipal Office Tanabe-shi,
Wakayama Prefecture Japan
Arne Kalland
Nordic Institute of Asian Studies,
Copenhagen, Denmark
Brian Moeran
Professor of Japanese Studies,
School of Asian & African Studies
University of London, U.K.
Gisli Palsson
Associate Professor of Anthropology
Faculty of Social Science, Universityof Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
Halldor Stefansson P r o f e s s o r o f A n t h r o p o l o g y .
Department of International Studies,
Osaka Gakuin Junior College
Junichi Takahashi
Associate Professor, Department ofInternational Studies, Obirin
College. Tokyo, Japan244

44/SEST/WP1

PROPOSAL FOR DEFINITION OF SMALL-TYPE WHALINGThe Government of Japan
1992

Small-type whaling operations are small-scale, locally managed and operated,with the distribution of whale products being locally centralised. The small-typewhale fishery sustains customs and institutions which are socially, culturally,
economically and nutritionally important to the local whaling communities.

245

44/SEST/WP1

246